Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Deregulation

Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to visit the European Commission in Brussels during the current Parliament to discuss deregulation in business. [11110]

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has regular contacts with the Commission and our European partners to discuss deregulation. He is to be congratulated on the considerable progress that has been made. We will maintain pressure for regulatory reform in Europe over the coming months.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend make one of his visitations, preferably prearranged, to the European Commission to make the European Union understand that the idea mooted by the Advocate General that the acquired rights directive should not apply to service contracts would be gravely prejudicial to British interests as regards competitive tendering in local government and

market testing in national government? That is an urgent matter which potentially affects the terms and conditions of employment of many thousands of people and many contractors in the United Kingdom.

The Deputy Prime Minister: All my visits are prearranged and tend to attract a great deal of attention. I can assure my hon. Friend that I am sympathetic to the idea that he has in mind. The timetable for the next few weeks may not allow for a high-profile visit to Brussels, but the Commission would undoubtedly welcome a visit and be immensely sympathetic to the message that I would deliver.

Mr. Caborn: Will the Deputy Prime Minister enlighten the House about the latest proposals from his Department's deregulation unit, which I think have been code-named sunset provisions? Can he confirm the reports that the latest idea from the unit, which was discussed in Cabinet this morning, according to the Financial Times, is to withdraw all regulations on companies after a period of five years, unless the Government take a clear decision to continue them? Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House whether that madcap idea has been discussed with the European Commission? According to the Financial Times this morning, the proposal was intended to appease small business. Will the Deputy Prime Minister harangue any that do not agree with him?

The Deputy Prime Minister: We all congratulate the Financial Times on reporting this morning conversations that have yet to take place. The Government have rigorously scrutinised all legislation and regulations to see how we can lighten the load on small businesses. We will continue to do that, but it is inconceivable that there would be an automatic sunset provision in all regulations introduced in the House.

Information Technology (Government Departments)

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress of his


Department's initiatives to use information technology within Government Departments and to disseminate information to the general public. [11111]

The Paymaster General (Mr. Michael Bates): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be making a comprehensive statement after the conclusion of the period for comments on the Green Paper "Government Direct", which was published last November. There have already been a large number of responses to the Green Paper and more are expected before the closing date, which is 7 February.

Mr. Bruce: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his answer and on his promotion to the Government Front Bench. The Government are helping to move out the information super-highways presaged by the Green Paper. Will we in South Dorset have one of the computerised terminals that would allow my constituents to find information about government and communicate directly with the Government?

Mr. Bates: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome to me to this position. The terminals have proved extremely popular throughout the country and many pilots have been available, but there is none yet in South Dorset. My hon. Friend's championing of interest in information technology and openness of government may lead us to consider that location shortly.

Mr. Derek Foster: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his elevated position. Despite his Geordie credentials, I hope that his tenure of office will be short.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a so-called unbeatable anti-benefit fraud scheme which was pioneered in the north-east was abandoned after only a year because the criminals cracked the system? Does that not prove that the Government are ill-prepared for the information revolution and impotent in protecting taxpayers from fraud? How can a Prime Minister who cannot lead his own party rise to meet the challenges of the information society and how can a Government who cannot see beyond the end of the week lead the nation into the millennium?

Mr. Bates: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his barbed welcome. It gives me an opportunity to thank the Leader of the Opposition for removing the right hon. Gentleman from his position as Opposition Chief Whip, thereby ensuring that my last year in the Whips Office was easier than it might otherwise have been.
We have taken many new initiatives to try to clamp down on benefit fraud—and it is notable that the Opposition have opposed every one.

Royal Yacht

Mr. Viggers: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his role in the co-ordination and presentation of Government policy in respect of the replacement for the royal yacht. [11112]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): My right hon. Friend chairs the Ministerial Committee on the Co-ordination and

Presentation of Government Policy and undertakes other activities as necessary to ensure the successful presentation of the Government's policies across its range of responsibilities.

Mr. Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that last week's statement about a replacement royal yacht has been widely welcomed? Does he agree also that, ideally, Britannia should become the centrepiece of the millennium project in Portsmouth harbour, spanning Gosport and Portsmouth? I am sure that that idea would prove very popular.
As to plans for a new yacht, does my right hon. Friend share my distaste for the Opposition's tactics? They had every opportunity to express their grudging and negative attitude during the past two years when the project was under discussion.

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us that the royal naval ship to replace Britannia should be commissioned in 2002, which is the golden jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen. I hope that the new ship will play an important role in those celebrations.
As to the Opposition's attitude, we have witnessed their small-mindedness and their misunderstanding not only of the role of Her Majesty but of the promotion of the best interests of the United Kingdom economy abroad.

Mr. Cunliffe: How can the Minister reconcile in any shape or form public expenditure cuts—which have forced many authorities, such as that in my area, to sack home helps and teachers and make all kinds of cuts to public services—with the proposed expenditure on a new royal yacht? Is that not indefensible, as most people consider the vessel to be a kind of floating palace which is used mainly by the privileged? The idea is totally unacceptable to the majority of British people and certainly to many of my colleagues.

Mr. Freeman: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the function of the royal yacht. It is in no sense an irrelevant "floating palace": its primary role is to make a very positive statement abroad about the importance of this country and to promote trade with the rest of the world. Her Majesty the Queen will use the royal yacht on certain occasions, but it is not for her exclusive use. I am very glad that Her Majesty is pleased with the decision.
As regards the proportionality of the decision, it does not represent additional, unplanned public expenditure, as the money for the Ministry of Defence will come from the reserve.

Sir Sydney Chapman: In welcoming the Government's recent announcement and disagreeing with the uncharacteristically unfair comments by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe), for whom I have great regard, I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that a replacement for Britannia is justified on commercial and trade grounds alone. In answer to those who say that the money might come from the national lottery rather than the taxpayer, will he confirm that everyone who buys a ticket in the national lottery immediately pays 12p to the Treasury? Therefore, if we were to hypothecate, we could say that a fraction of the lottery money will pay for the new royal yacht.

Mr. Freeman: It will take the next five years to design and build the new royal yacht. She will be commissioned


with, we hope, a life of 25 to 30 years at the very least. It will be money well spent by the Government on behalf of the taxpayer in promoting the best interests of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Beith: Will the Minister confirm that it has been the Government's practice to consult the Opposition parties beforehand on every announcement affecting or concerning the royal family, so as not to embroil the royal family in any political controversy? Will he explain the thinking behind the refusal to accept any element of business support for the project? Surely we have passed through the days when it was fashionable to disparage those in trade. Are the Government not acting rather like one of the Minister's former hon. Friends towards one of his right hon. Friends, who referred to him as the sort of person who had to buy his own furniture?

Mr. Freeman: On consultation with the Opposition parties, this is not a constitutional matter. It is a right and proper decision for the Government in commissioning a royal naval ship. I hope that the House will appreciate that business sponsorship of a royal naval ship, which occasionally will be used by Her Majesty the Queen, is not appropriate.

Mr. Jessel: Will my right hon. Friend confirm my arithmetic that £60 million, when divided among the United Kingdom's population of 58 million, works out at about £1 per head, or about 20p per head per year over five years? Is it not unbelievably small-minded of Opposition Members to carp about such a small sum that can do such a great deal to generate employment and exports?

Mr. Freeman: I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will very much agree with my hon. Friend. The Opposition do not understand the importance of promoting the best interests of the United Kingdom throughout the world.

Government Policy

Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he last met the Prime Minister to discuss the co-ordination and presentation of Government policy. [11115]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I meet my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister regularly to discuss many areas of my responsibility.

Mr. Jones: Why did not the Government discuss matters concerning the royal yacht with Her Majesty's very loyal Opposition? Why did the Government contrive a situation that caused deep embarrassment to the sovereign? The presentation of policy under the right hon. Gentleman is an unmitigated disaster.

The Deputy Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster a few moments ago.

Sir Donald Thompson: When my right hon. Friend is discussing with his right hon. and hon. Friends the co-ordination and presentation of the Government's

policies, will he not omit the way in which Government policy has enriched the north, the north-east, Wales and Scotland as well as the south?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that the House will recognise the further continuation of Government success as a result of Nissan's exciting recent announcement.

Mr. Prescott: Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain to us the difference between seeing my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about extra millennium expenditure and having discussions about the Queen's yacht?

The Deputy Prime Minister: Very simply, I saw the Leader of the Opposition as a millennium commissioner; I speak in the Chamber as a Minister.

Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will review the co-ordination of Government Departments in respect of the provision of information on Government policy on the European Union. [11116]

Mr. Freeman: We have no plans to carry out any such review.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern and alarm that, throughout the recent big row about value added tax on food, no reference has been made to the fact that, under article 28.2 of the sixth directive, which, incidentally, was approved by the Labour Government, a right to continue a zero rate ended on 31 December 1996 and has continued only by a legal ploy, which is likely to be challenged at the European Court? Would it not be fairer to the electors if the Government and the Opposition were to make it abundantly clear to the people of Britain, instead of putting up silly posters, that there is a real danger that we shall shortly have to pay VAT on food and on children's clothes irrespective of who wins the general election?

Mr. Freeman: I very much regret that I cannot agree with my hon. Friend's analysis. I am sure that he is sincere, but there is no imminent danger of VAT being put on food.

Mr. Shore: On the co-ordination of Government policy and information about the European Union, will the Minister tell us whether today's release through the British press of the excellent article written by the Prime Minister, in which he makes clear his great repugnance of the idea of a European central bank on democratic grounds, was cleared with the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Freeman: I have not seen the reports to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. The Prime Minister, on behalf of a unanimous Cabinet, made our policy quite plain. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) may laugh, but I am repeating for the record the facts of our policy on the single European currency.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend remind our colleagues in the European Union that this country has had much greater success in creating jobs that they have? The reason for that is that we have a relatively deregulated economy, whereas they have overregulated economies.

Mr. Freeman: Her Majesty's Government will continue to remind the British electorate of the advantages of our opt-out from the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty. We will also continue to remind the electorate that the Labour party would jeopardise that opt-out, increase unemployment and reduce our competitiveness.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many meetings he has had with his Cabinet colleagues and civil servants since October to discuss the presentation of Government policy. [11117]

Mr. Bates: That subject has arisen frequently in meetings during that period.

Mr. Cunningham: Does the Deputy Prime Minister remain in charge of Government policy, given that he was not allowed to present the case for the royal yacht?

Mr. Bates: Questions on that subject have already been answered. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They have already been answered. The hon. Gentleman asked a serious question, and I shall give him an answer based on my experience. I visited India two years ago, not long after the royal yacht Britannia had been there. During its visit, £1.3 billion-worth of orders for British companies were secured, which meant thousands of jobs. The new royal yacht will mean 500 jobs for the shipyards—a subject that Labour Members used to care about, but that now only Conservative Members care about.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: When my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister discusses the presentation of Government policy, will he stress yet further the great success of the private finance initiative, particularly in north-west Kent, where, thanks to the PFI, we will get me brand new Darenth Park hospital? Will he contrast the Government's policy with that of the Labour party, which would have us waiting in the queue for Government handouts of NHS capital, as we have waited for the past 25 years?

Mr. Bates: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend's observations on the private finance initiative. I know of his interest in this matter. His constituents will benefit from our policies, which create extra beds and extra facilities in much-needed health care.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Were not the attempts to portray Government policy as full of probity, honesty and honour called into question by the cheating of the Government Whips just before Christmas? Why has there still been no apology for that cheating? Why have no heads rolled?

Mr. Bates: Perhaps because it was not cheating. It could be more easily explained as sheer incompetence by the Opposition Chief Whip.

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his Department's role in co-ordinating Her Majesty's Government's economic and social policies. [11119]

Mr. Bates: My right hon. Friends and I work closely with colleagues to carry out the policies that are best for Britain. Our key policy themes include the delivery of economic prosperity, the upholding of decent common-sense values in the pursuit of law and order and justice, and the provision of first-class public services.

Mr. Dykes: Does my hon. Friend expect the forthcoming economic statistics to confirm the strong underlying growth trend in the United Kingdom economy?

Mr. Bates: We do indeed. I agree with my hon. Friend about that trend. This morning, we learned of yet more figures demonstrating strong growth: there has been a growth of 2.3 per cent. in gross domestic product. That further endorses the Government's performance in delivering good, solid growth that is non-inflationary, something that has eluded past Governments for about 50 years.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that last Wednesday—the very day on which the announcement about the royal yacht was made—the Secretary of State for Wales announced, in reply to a question from me, that the Government could not go ahead with their commitment to a community hospital in Porthmadog which they had promised for the past seven years, because it had to await the private finance initiative? If the Government are providing public money for the royal yacht when private money is available, and not proceeding with hospital projects when no private money is available, what are their social priorities?

Mr. Bates: During this Question Time, we have heard of instances in which the private finance initiative is working for health care; I know, from experience in my part of the country, that that is happening. The subject will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales—but I seem to remember that, on that same day, my right hon. Friend announced the creation of 700 new jobs as a result of inward investment in Wales.

Mr. Congdon: I welcome the success of the Government's economic policies since 1992. Since that time, they have led to the best growth record in comparison with the other major European countries, and to a record fall in unemployment. Does my hon. Friend agree that all that would be put at risk by the imposition of a minimum wage and the implementation of the social chapter, as advocated by the Labour party?

Mr. Bates: Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention. Let me again stress the threat to jobs that would be posed by the possibility of an alternative Government. The reality is that the unemployment rate in this country is coming down, and my hon. Friend may be interested to learn—even if the Opposition are not—that the London chamber of commerce has today put paid to the myth promulgated by the Opposition that the jobs involved are all part time. It says that the growth in part-time jobs was greater in the 1950s and 1960s, and that these are new full-time jobs that are extremely welcome.

Mr. Winnick: Are we to take it that the person who heads co-ordination—the Deputy Prime Minister—denies any responsibility for the announcement about the royal ship? Is it not clear that that announcement was meant as an election ploy, but has backfired on the Government? Is it not a matter of deep regret that the Queen has been embarrassed in such a way by this Government?

Mr. Bates: Listen: we are not going to take that from the Opposition. [Interruption.] May I just make a few points clear? The hon. Gentleman, who is a very experienced Member of Parliament, may remember that, in the middle of the general election campaign of 1951, a Labour Government announced the placement of an order for the royal yacht.

Mr. Rowe: While taking an interest in the presentation of Government policy, will my hon. Friend remind the chattering classes who currently appear to be taken in by new Labour that, in 1979, they and their predecessors were convinced both that the country was becoming ungovernable and that the north-south divide was entirely unbridgeable? Both those factors have been turned on their heads by the success of the present Government.

Mr. Bates: I certainly endorse what my hon. Friend has said. It was generous of him to draw attention to the eradication of the old phrase "the north-south divide". The north is now sharing in the benefits of our present economic prosperity, along with the rest of the country. Last week, jobs were announced in England, in the shape of Nissan; in Wales, in the shape of a meat processing factory; and in Northern Ireland, in the shape of Shorts. This week, jobs have also been announced in Scotland. There is not a part of the United Kingdom that is not benefiting from this economic prosperity, and therefore there is not a part of it that would not be at risk from a Labour Government.

Mr. Hutton: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the role of civil servants in the co-ordination and presentation of Government policy. [11122]

The Deputy Prime Minister: Civil servants continue to play a role in co-ordinating and presenting Government policy consistent with the spirit and the letter of the civil service code and the civil service management code.

Mr. Hutton: Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that he agrees with the principle that civil servants should not be asked to take part in activities that could give rise to criticism that people who are paid from the public purse are being used for purely party political reasons? Will he therefore explain why, on at least two occasions in the past six months, that appears to have taken place, first, in the laughable attempt to cost Labour's manifesto commitments and, secondly, in the establishment of a so-called good news network in the business community to argue for Tory policies? Do not both those activities expose the fact that the Government have broken the spirit, at least, of those guidelines?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that the costing of Opposition policies is carried out under guidelines established by the head of the

civil service, so I in no way accept his first suggestion. The second suggestion is that civil servants were in some way improperly used in examining areas where supporters of Government policy might exist. That is the subject of an investigation by the Select Committee that is appropriately responsible for the matter, which took evidence from the head of the civil service, who made it clear that nothing improper had taken place. However, before the hon. Gentleman feels that I am wholly in accord with the spirit of what he suggests, he will be aware of the statement by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher):
leaked documents are particularly welcome. I promise to make good use of them.
I have never read a more disgraceful statement by a Labour party spokesman positively encouraging civil servants to break their high standards.

Mr. Marlow: I believe that it is right that civil servants in the United Kingdom are not supposed to involve themselves in the organisation and presentation of Government policy. Why therefore is it right that Brussels's very own Dr. Goebbels, Geoffrey Martin, of the European Union office on the other side of the square, wishes to involve himself in the great democratic process known as the British general election? Will my right hon. Friend do something to stop that involvement happening? It is scandalous.

The Deputy Prime Minister: I will send a little note to the gentleman concerned drawing his attention to my hon. Friend's views.

Mr. Llew Smith: Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House whether civil servants or the Government co-ordinated the Prime Minister's statement over the weekend that, if we become part of a single currency, we will hand over economic decisions to an unelected and unaccountable European central bank?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has obviously not been fully in touch with what has been going on recently on these matters because, if he had been, he would realise that the party that is threatening to hand over more power to the European movement and to extend qualified majority voting is his own party.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Would it be right to assume that civil servants did discuss the policy on the royal yacht with Ministers and to congratulate them as well as Ministers on the policy? Surely it has become clear from exchanges this afternoon and well before that, like its predecessor, the new royal yacht will earn billions of pounds, which will enable the Government to build many more schools, hospitals and the like than could be built for £60 million.

The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Let me make it absolutely clear that the decision about the royal yacht was taken in the normal practices of Government after discussion with officials from the Departments concerned and that the decision was collectively agreed by Ministers. But the whole House will have witnessed the most extraordinary thing: when the announcement was made, one conspicuous voice on the Opposition Benches, the right hon. Member for


Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), had the guts and integrity to speak for Britain. If I have to choose between new Labour and old Labour, give me old Labour every time. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I think that Mr. Faulds is making it clear that he also caught my eye on that occasion and was very supportive. [Interruption.]

Value Added Tax

Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he last met the Chancellor of the Exchequer to discuss the co-ordination and presentation of Government policies relating to VAT. [11125]

The Deputy Prime Minister: Labour Members have not recovered from my last reply. I shall try another one.
I keep in regular touch with my right hon. and learned Friend to consider how the Government can further the success of their economic and fiscal policies.

Mr. Gerrard: Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm from his discussions with the Chancellor that the Chancellor has several times clearly stated his view that the VAT tax base is too narrow and specifically mentioned food, children's clothing and newspapers as candidates for the extension of VAT? Precisely which of those is being considered for VAT?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The Chancellor has made his position absolutely clear, despite Labour attacks suggesting that he proposes to extend VAT to food. Both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have said that that is simply not the case. Nothing is more indicative of the scurrilous nature of Labour's coming election campaign than the preposterous posters with which it is adorning the countryside. It is extraordinary that Labour should ask us to answer questions about taxation. Why cannot it answer questions about any of its own taxation proposals?

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Cyprus

Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much assistance was given to Cyprus in 1996. [11138]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. Liam Fox): Bilateral assistance to Cyprus totalled £473,000 in 1995–96. Assistance from the European Union was £450,000 in 1994, of which the UK share was some 16 per cent. Those are the latest years for which figures are available.

Mr. Evans: Does my hon. Friend think it is regrettable that tensions on the island seem to be increasing? Not only were mere tragic deaths last year on the green line, but it has been announced that Cyprus intends to buy the S300 military system from Russia. At the same time, the authorities in the north have said that they will retaliate

with more army personnel in the north. Does he agree that negotiation is the only way to resolve the problems and hostilities on the island, particularly in view of Cyprus's European Union application? Does he further agree that the real losers will be both sides if we allow military tensions to increase any further on this beautiful island?

Dr. Fox: The missile deal is extremely unwelcome. It dangerously raises the stakes in an already tense area. Equally, the Turkish threats are unacceptable. All parties must look for ways to reduce tension, not add to it, and I am sure that that view is shared by all hon. Members.

Mr. Faulds: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that perhaps the more relevant question would be how much assistance has been given to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which the Greek regime has prevented from happening? But would he also agree that the provocations on the green line, the UN separating border, have been by the Greek Cypriots because no other forces apart from the UN are supposed to enter that area?

Dr. Fox: The Government do not recognise the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus—only Turkey does. There can be no change in our policy of maintaining balanced contacts with both communities. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary deserves praise for his recent initiative in trying to take forward peace in Cyprus. Only by a negotiated settlement and equal movement on both sides can peace be achieved.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the greatest assistance that can be given to Cyprus is for the island to be reunited so that the refugees can return to their homes?

Dr. Fox: We are looking at the 10 points that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made in taking the peace process forward. If we are to achieve a settlement, both Governments must reduce the tension. The No.1 move needed at the moment is for both sides to get away from the dangerous rhetoric of recent weeks and to start to reduce, not increase, the tension. We should like to see fewer arms on both sides in Cyprus than there are at present.

Rwanda

Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further assessment he has made of the effects of conditions attached to aid from (a) the World bank and (b) other sources on the causes of the civil war in Rwanda. [11139]

Dr. Liam Fox: The causes of the crisis in Rwanda are complex and go back many generations. However, the report, "Joint Evaluation of Emergency Assistance to Rwanda", did not conclude that previous development assistance was a primary cause of the crisis in Rwanda.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that the five-volume report, which the Minister of State has placed in the Library, makes it clear that there were many factors in the crisis? Is it not true that an over-emphasis on competition, particularly among people of similar ethnic background and in certain regions of a country,


increases the risk of armed conflict? Has not history shown that that is true? Would not it be good if in future the World bank, the International Monetary Fund and national Governments paid attention to that fact when drawing up loan conditions?

Dr. Fox: It is certainly true that the report's historical analysis attaches some blame to ethnic policies during the colonial period, although the United Kingdom was not primarily involved in that area. Our aid to Rwanda is of a humanitarian nature, and we should remember that people in Rwanda—regardless of which ethnic group they belong to—may be starving. Our primary objective in Rwanda is to deal with its humanitarian needs.

Mr. Foulkes: Does the Minister recall that, last week, the Foreign Secretary admitted that the United Nations' arms embargo is not enforceable in our dependencies, which is why Mil-Tec of the Isle of Man was able to supply more than £3 million of arms to the perpetrators of genocide in Rwanda? Will the Minister assure us that no other such violations are occurring, and attempt to close the loophole so that seedy companies in those island boltholes cannot undermine all our humanitarian efforts?

Dr. Fox: I might have expected that the hon. Gentleman, rather than concentrating on the £175 million bilateral humanitarian aid that the United Kingdom has given since 1994, would try to find the single negative aspect in Britain's involvement in the Rwanda crisis. Customs and Excise is currently considering whether there is a case for more prosecutions, and I am therefore unable to answer his specific question. Should further details emerge, I will write to him. Instead of the pathetic sniping we have just heard, it would be nice if, for once, the Opposition were to praise the United Kingdom for the help it has provided in the Great Lakes crisis, and to praise our non-governmental organisations and those who put their lives at risk.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is it not the case that the countries of Africa and elsewhere that have complied with programmes suggested by the World bank made very great progress, whereas countries such as Rwanda, which are involved in political expression and racial politics, have not lived up to the standards of the new Africa and new developing countries?

Dr. Fox: I should have thought that it was self-evident that the political situation in Rwanda is holding back any economic development. There has been much economic movement in neighbouring countries such as Tanzania or Uganda, in which there has been some political co-operation—which, sadly, we have not seen in some of the other countries of the Great Lakes region. I hope that the Governments in the region will co-operate to provide a stable political environment in which economic development can occur in Rwanda. Clearly there must be a regional solution; we cannot impose one from outside, through financial institutions or by other means.

Tanzania

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional

assistance has been provided in the last year to help Tanzania cope with the influx of refugees from Rwanda and Burundi. [11141]

Dr. Liam Fox: Britain has committed £3 million bilaterally since January 1996 to help Tanzania to cope. We are ready to do more.

Mr. Griffiths: I thank the Minister for that response, and I am very pleased that the Government's emergency aid to Tanzania has been increasing. However, will he stop for a moment, ponder the wider picture and try to imagine what would happen if, for example, half a million people suddenly moved into the south-west of England, Wales or the highlands of Scotland and started to live off the land, on which they were dependent for all their requirements? A radical transformation in economic and financial policy is occurring in Tanzania. In such circumstances, why have the Government halved their general aid programme to that country in the past five years? Will they now admit that they should be doing more to help the Hutu refugees return to their own country?

Dr. Fox: I returned last week from a trip to Tanzania. I discussed the refugee problem with the Tanzanian Government, whom the House should congratulate on the efficient and sensitive way in which they have dealt with the Rwandan refugees, given the size and the nature of the problem. We have already provided substantial aid and we are willing to do more. The problem that the Tanzanian Government identified was not a matter of need as such, but of access to many refugee groups. The Government are constantly looking at that problem. We have an open dialogue with Tanzania and if the Tanzanian Government ask for specific help, we shall certainly consider it.

Great Lakes

Mr. Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much of his Department's bilateral and multilateral budget was allocated to the Great Lakes area of Africa in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [11142]

Dr. Liam Fox: More than £14 million of gross public expenditure was provided to the Great Lakes region in the financial year 1995–96. Comparable information on multilateral expenditure is not readily available.

Mr. Timms: I thank the Minister for that answer. In view of his earlier answer, will he reassure the House and the country by expressing outrage at last week's revelation that British arms were supplied to Hutu extremists in Rwanda? Does he agree that it is extremely important that the perpetrators of genocide in Rwanda are rapidly brought to justice if we are to ensure that the welcome British and other aid that has been supplied since 1994 is not wasted?

Dr. Fox: Indeed, human rights problems cause us great concern not only in Rwanda but in Burundi. The perpetrators of genocide must be brought to trial. We are looking at events in Rwanda to make sure that the trials


are fair and that a proper system of justice is applied because, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, without basic political stability we will be unable to use the large resources that are currently available in the Great Lakes region to help the refugees. The greatest problem identified by non-governmental organisations is moving the stocks that are already in place to the refugees; political stability is required first.

Mr. Rowe: In such a tangled area there have, of course, been distressing stories of some aid being misappropriated. Will my hon. Friend assure us that, particularly in parts of Africa where the NGOs are far less strong but aid is given, every possible means is used to avoid it being misappropriated or falling into the wrong hands?

Dr. Fox: Of course we shall try to do that as far as we can, but it would be quite wrong and improper for me to suggest to the House that we have that degree of control over where the aid goes once it has been disbursed. We hope that the organisations to which we provide aid will make the best use of it. We should commend the courage of the NGOs, especially those who have been willing to put their lives in danger to use the aid that we supply for the greater good. We are grateful that people are still willing to take that risk for humanitarian reasons.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the Minister inform the House how much of his Department's bilateral aid programme has been dedicated to education? Education in Rwanda touches only the 8 per cent. of the population who are literate, despite the fact, of which the Minister does not appear to be aware, that for the past two and a half years the Rwandan Cabinet has been a coalition, elected from all parts of society, and a very good Government. None the less, our Government are still not supporting UNESCO through multilateral aid, despite the wonderful work of the organisation there. Will the Minister discuss the matter with UNESCO's deputy director-general, Professor Maurizio Iaccarino, who will be in London this week?

Dr. Fox: While I am always willing to take part in discussions that I believe will be fruitful, our position has been made quite clear in UNESCO and I need say nothing further on that. Much aid is focused on the internal structure in Rwanda. Since 1994, £127 million of European Union money—of which £18.5 million was United Kingdom money—has been given for human rights, health, education, environment and other projects in Rwanda. The Government have a good record on supporting education projects in Rwanda. It is certainly nothing to feel sorry about. We are proud of our record since 1992.

Aid Budget

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received since the Budget regarding the level of aid projected for 1997–98. [11143]

Dr. Liam Fox: We have received a number of representations from hon. Members and others.

Mr. Pike: Are not organisations involved in overseas aid concerned that the figure for 1997–98 represents a real-terms cut of 8.4 per cent.? It is also a cut in cash terms. Do not the Government stand condemned on their record of cutting money for overseas aid?

Dr. Fox: I really did not think that any Opposition Member would have the nerve to say that today. The Labour policy document of October 1996 says:
Labour will start to reverse the decline in UK aid spending.
I wonder how that squares with what the shadow Chancellor said last week. Either Labour's tax and spend promises are not worth the paper on which they are written or Labour Members, if they now agree with our tax and spend priorities, have been telling porkies for the past 17 years. Either the shadow Chancellor's document is dishonest, or Labour now admits that it has been consistently wrong for the past 17 years. If it is going to increase aid, what will it cut—or is its promise just another casualty in its seemingly insane search for power?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

National Audit Office (Staff)

Mr. Steen: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission how many staff without professional qualification are employed by the National Audit Office. [11148]

Sir Terence Higgins (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The National Audit Office employs 328 staff who do not currently have a professional qualification. Included in that number are 91 staff who are training for a professional qualification and 100 others who have been trained to a high standard in the professional disciplines required by the office. The remaining 137 include the full range of support staff required by a professional organisation.

Mr. Steen: Is it not clear that the National Audit Office is doing well and reducing the number of staff because it is working with a Government who are committed to reducing bureaucracy, cutting red tape and getting rid of unnecessary laws? Is it not true that if the Labour party ever got into power, the number of staff, skilled and unskilled, in the National Audit Office would rise dramatically, simply because of the number of rules and regulations that a Labour Government would introduce? Labour does not trust the people and would introduce ever more laws, so more people would be needed in the National Audit Office to check on what was going on.

Sir Terence Higgins: In 1997–98, a greater volume of work will be done at a lower real-terms cost. As for the second part of my hon. Friend's question, he may well think that, but it would be wrong for me to answer a hypothetical question.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Public Accounts Commission accept that the qualifications of those in the National Audit Office are adequate—indeed, highly


suitable—to take on the task of considering the work of the non-departmental public bodies that spend public money? The work of those bodies is not subject to review and has for too long been excluded from proper oversight. Will the right hon. Gentleman invite his colleagues on the commission to consider the resource implications, if any, of expanding its remit in that way?

Sir Terence Higgins: The main work of the office covers 570 accounts, involving expenditure and income of more than £500 billion. It is also the auditor of half of the 300 or so non-executive agencies to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I shall consider carefully what he has said and bring it to the attention of the commission.

Mr. Janner: Has the commission complied with the recommendations of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality to carry out proper sex and ethnic monitoring? If so, what are the results?

Sir Terence Higgins: I cannot give the hon. and learned Gentleman an immediate reply, but I shall happily look into the matter and write to him. Alternatively, he may wish to table a specific question. I am not aware of any form of discrimination in the employment of the staff to whom I referred in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen).

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Angola

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support his Department is giving to (a) school and (b) higher education schemes for Angola; and if he will make a statement [11144]

Dr. Liam Fox: We are supporting efforts to improve the teaching of English in secondary schools and at the Institute of Languages.

Mr. Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware of the devastated condition of many schools in Angola following the civil war? Is he aware that quite a lot of aid is given to Angola? Should not that aid be directed into education, which would best enable the country to help itself and its citizens?

Dr. Fox: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I am also grateful for the fact that schoolchildren in his constituency, following his visit to Angola, raised £500 and donated it to the Chiva primary school near Huambo for classroom furniture and educational materials. We currently have two English language teaching projects, costing £900,000. It is important for us as a nation to recognise that whatever the colonial legacy in terms of language, English is the international business language and the language of the future. It is important for developing nations to learn English if they are to trade successfully in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Disestablishment

Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will estimate the costs of disestablishing the Church of England. [11149]

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Disestablishment would not lie with the Church Commissioners to initiate and, without formal instructions and definitions, cost estimates are impracticable.

Mr. Brown: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. However, does he agree that whatever the costs, they would be well worth paying to enable the Church of England to renew itself? For example, the diocese of Lincoln, which covers my constituency, has become a laughing stock because the bishop, for whom I have the greatest regard, is unable to preach his Christmas sermon in his own cathedral. Does my right hon. Friend agree that as many vicars—two thirds, so it is said—are unable to remember even two or three of the Ten Commandments, there is a case for allowing the Church of England to go its own way, to renew itself and to take part in political debate without politicians criticising it when it does so?

Mr. Alison: I share my hon. Friend's dismay at the damage that the Lincoln cathedral dispute has done. I am grateful for the concern that he has expressed, the interest that he has taken and the support that he has given to the Bishop of Lincoln. Disestablishing the Church of England, however, could prove detrimental to Church and to state. It would be paradoxical thus to extend even further the detriment that has already arisen from the Lincoln dispute.

Mr. Frank Field: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that no disestablishment Bill has gone through the House without disendowment? The effect of disestablishment would be that, the day after, the same old crew would be running the same old show with a lot less money.

Mr. Alison: I am happy to confirm the point that the hon. Gentleman has shrewdly and pertinently made. Queen Anne's bounty, which has a remote but important historic pedigree and origin, is at stake in the matter of disestablishment and, if disendowment occurred, there would not be sufficient resources to pay clergy stipends at their present level.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I join in the support for the Bishop of Lincoln who has had a hard time and who deserves fully to be supported. It would, however, be helpful if the Church Commissioners assessed the benefits of disestablishment. It has been no disbenefit in Ireland and no disbenefit in Wales. The better and more democratic position in Scotland has been no disbenefit either. The benefits would be to the Church which, it seems to me from all the Gospel teachings, should not be part of the establishment but challenging it.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman should reflect on the point made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—that disestablishment would inescapably be associated with the controversial issue of disendowment. Although that might be a great benefit to the non-conformist Churches, which might claim some of the assets of the Church of England, and to the Roman Catholic Church, it would bring considerable financial detriment to the clergy in the Church of England.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will not my right hon. Friend give a more robust defence of establishment? Does he agree that one inestimable benefit of establishment is that every man, woman and child in the country has, as of right, the services of the established Church unless he or she is a member of some other religion or sect?

Mr. Alison: I am happy to support my hon. Friend and I hope that my references to the hon. Member for Birkenhead showed that I am intrinsically robust in my approach. In the light of the importance and significance of Church Commissioners' questions every month, I hesitated so as not to exalt too highly the benefits that might accrue to Parliament from having questions answered regularly by a Conservative Back Bencher.

Church Funds

Mr. Flynn: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what new proposals he has to improve the transparency of Church funds." [11150]

Mr. Alison: The statement of recommended practice "Accounting by Charities", issued by the Charity

Commission, and part VI of the Charities Act 1993 and the Charities (Accounts and Reports) Regulations 1995, provide the framework for charity accounting with which dioceses and parishes of the Church of England must comply. The Church Commissioners are exempt from the regulations but complied in full with the statement of recommended practice in their 1995 accounts.

Mr. Flynn: When will the Church publish the report that might partly explain the calamity whereby the Church Commissioners lost a third of their total assets in the great property boom and how they lost £80 million in an absurd venture in Kent? It seems that we are not to know the details. When will the right hon. Gentleman answer the campaigns by CELFRA—Church of England's lost funds recovery action—and Mr. Ancrum Evans who claim that the Church Commissioners should sue Coopers and Lybrand and Chestertons and anyone else who advised them during the loss of that £80 million? The Commissioners are still refusing to publish the full report. When will we be told the truth?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman will know that all the details of the losses, which occurred some years ago, were published in the properly scrutinised and audited annual reports. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who although he comes from Wales is not inimical to the Church of England, will be glad to know that the largely paper losses that arose from the drop in valuation of the Church of England's assets have now been almost fully recovered. On the question of the property in Ashford in Kent, if the hon. Gentleman would like to table a question, I will happily give him at least a written answer. Consideration and investigation of the background to that debacle—I agree that it was no less than that—are continuing and results will be published in due course.

Points of Order

Mr. Kevin McNamara: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that, last week, Mr. Justice Kay discontinued the trial of people accused of escaping from Whitemoor prison. One of the reasons that he gave for doing so was the deteriorating health of the accused as a result of the conditions in which they were kept in the prison. Has the Home Secretary given any indication that later today he will seek your leave to interrupt business, to make a statement about the debacle of that trial?

Madam Speaker: I have not heard from any Minister, and certainly not from the Home Secretary, that he is seeking to make a statement later today, although, of course, the House will be sitting and any Minister is able to make a statement later in the day, as the hon. Gentleman is aware.

Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It may surprise you to know that in the past, two members of the royal family have communicated their approval to me of campaigns that I have run, but—following "Erskine May"—I have never mentioned that fact in the House. I should like us to consider what is stated on page 376 of "Erskine May":
The irregular use of the Queen's name to influence a decision of the House is unconstitutional in principle and inconsistent with the independence of Parliament.
Today, we heard the use of the Queen's name as approving a controversial decision, and there were similar examples last week. We all regret the fact that the Queen's name has been dragged into a controversial political matter. May we have a ruling on whether the rules of the House have been broken?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct; I would refer any Member who is interested to page 376 of "Erskine May", where it reminds us that it is disorderly to
use the Queen's name to influence a decision"—

or the judgment of this House. In this instance, I heard the remark that was made, but did not hear anything irregular in any of the exchanges this afternoon—just as I did not during the statement last week, although many remarks got close to being objectionable. I should, however, take this opportunity—I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter—to remind all Members, whether they are Ministers of the Crown, Front Benchers or Back Benchers, that the Queen's name should not be used in this House during such exchanges.

Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker—

Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is probably aware that, once I have given a ruling, I do not accept further points of order on the subject. I have nothing further to add to what I have already said. If he can make a different point, I will of course hear it.

Mr. Williams: It is an extension of the point.

Madam Speaker: Now who is rewriting the constitution?

Mr. Williams: I am sure, Madam Speaker, that you will see my point to be an extension. I accept entirely your ruling that one must not use Her Majesty's name in such matters. Is not it also part of the rule that one should not embroil the Crown in party political disputes in the House—which is a wider point? Was not what happened on Wednesday a calculated and deliberate attempt to do just that on the eve of an election? Is not the matter even more serious, given that the statement last week could not have been made without the Prime Minister's consent? If what I have put forward is a rule of the House, should not the Prime Minister therefore come to the House to explain his conspiracy in breaching that rule?

Madam Speaker: It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to involve the Speaker of the House in party political exchanges. I am not prepared to be so involved. I have given my ruling and I stand by it.

Orders of the Day — Sex Offenders Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is an important further plank in the Government's strategy for protecting the public against sex offenders, particularly those who prey on children. It contains two distinct parts, both with the common purpose of protecting children from sexual abuse. Part I imposes a requirement on those convicted of sex offences against children and other serious sex offences to register their name and address, and any subsequent changes, with the police. Part II makes it an offence for United Kingdom residents to commit certain sex acts against children abroad. The Bill's measures represent an important step in our comprehensive strategy to combat sex offenders. I should say something about the overall strategy, of which the Bill is a part.
In the Crime (Sentences) Bill, as the House will recall, we are providing for automatic life sentences for those convicted, for a second time, of a serious sex offence: rape, attempted rape or unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13 years old. Passing a life sentence on those who have demonstrated the propensity for repeated serious sexual offences will ensure that such people are not released unless or until it is judged safe to do so. In addition, the Crime (Sentences) Bill provides that all sex offenders will receive extended supervision after release for a minimum of 12 months or 50 per cent. of sentence, extendable up to 10 years at the court's discretion.
As well as the Crime (Sentences) Bill and the Bill before the House today, the Government are legislating, through the Protection from Harassment Bill, against stalking—a phenomenon that may often have a sexual element, sometimes directed against child victims. We are also supporting two important private Members' Bills. The Sexual Offences (Protected Material) Bill will regulate access to victim statements in sex offence cases, and prevent the despicable practice of such material being used for pornographic purposes, and the Criminal Evidence (Amendment) Bill will extend police powers to obtain DNA—deoxyribonucleic acid—tests for all convicted sex offenders still serving a sentence.
Finally, we are today publishing proposals for a prohibition on sex offenders seeking employment with children. Copies of the proposals have been placed in the Library. That was one of the elements discussed in last summer's consultation paper and it received widespread support, but it was clear from the comments received that further work was necessary to develop an effective scheme. The results of that further work are contained in the paper published jointly today by the Home Office and the Scottish Office and we look forward to receiving further comments from the public on how the arrangements should work.
To return to the Bill, the suggestion that sex offenders should be required to register was first put forward by the Police Superintendents Association of England and

Wales, and I am grateful to that organisation for its assistance in developing our proposals. We decided to issue a consultative document, "Sentencing and Supervision of Sex Offenders", in June last year to canvass opinions on a range of measures that could improve public protection against sex offenders, including a registration requirement. There was strong support for the idea of registration—as there was for all the proposals in that document—and the Bill has been drafted in the light of the detailed comments that we received on how the scheme should work in practice.
Recent tragic cases have brought home to all of us the risk posed to children by paedophiles. There is a clear need for additional measures to strengthen the arrangements already in place to protect the public against sex offenders. We should not delude ourselves into thinking that there will ever be a complete defence against the determined sexual predator, but the Government must, and will, do all that they can to make sure that children can be protected as far as is possible.
The primary purpose of requiring convicted sex offenders to notify the police of their name and address and of changes to those details is to ensure that the information contained within the police national computer remains fully up to date. At the moment, the address held in police records will be the last one known to the police, which is usually the one where the offender was residing when convicted. The unsatisfactory result is that the police have no means of learning when a convicted sex offender has moved into their area.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Are the arrangements different for any other sort of offence? For example, if a repeated drugs offender or repeated mugger moves house, does he have to register his address somewhere?

Mr. Maclean: No, such offenders do not have to register their address. The requirement to register is an innovation and, so far, we are proposing that it should apply only to those convicted of the offences listed in schedule 1. Of course, prisons notify local police of people leaving prison who were convicted of serious offences, and those who have received a life sentence may have conditions built into their life licence that they should notify the police of any change of address. However, other than in those circumstances, there is no requirement on individuals to tell the police that they are moving or, indeed, that they have moved.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am sure that the Government want to do everything possible to ensure that good information is held The Minister mentioned that the police are passed information when an individual is released from prison, and I believe that that information is also passed to social services departments. Will the Minister therefore clarify the instructions for local authority departments? In the paper, "Working Together", which was published a few years ago, it was said that local authorities should not keep lists of suspected offenders, despite the fact that there was a court case—Regina v. Devon county council—in which local authorities were held to be responsible for keeping such information and using it.

Mr. Maclean: It may be legitimate for authorities to keep lists of offenders, especially when there is any


likelihood of their seeking employment with children. As I continue my speech, the hon. Gentleman may be satisfied by comments that I make. In addition, I shall address another point that he raised in the press at the weekend.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: Will the Minister assure us that he believes that the Bill's provisions are sufficient to deal with paedophiles who, as he probably knows, frequently change their names and the areas in which they live? One matter that concerns me is the difficulty that the police and social services have in keeping track of such people when they have changed their name or moved to another area. Is the Minister happy that the Bill's provisions will ensure that paedophiles can be tracked by the police and social services?

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which I shall come to shortly. The short answer is no. That is why I am informing the House that I shall propose a small amendment to impose a requirement for additional information to be provided by the person, to enable the police to identify more accurately the person standing at their desk and giving them a name and address. I have concluded that the requirement for merely a name and address needs to be strengthened.

Sir Patrick Cormack: If the aim of the provisions is to give added protection and security to the general population and to act as a deterrent to a potential offender, and if that is such a splendid idea, why are the provisions not extended to other categories of dangerous people? There seems to be some illogicality in my right hon. Friend's proposals if he limits them in that way.
In that context, did my right hon. Friend see the remarkably interesting and sensitive article by Matthew Parris in The Times last Friday?

Mr. Maclean: Yes, I did see the article and I shall refer to it in a moment, but I say to my hon. Friend that we must not attempt to bite off more than we can chew.
I believe that everyone accepts that, among criminals, paedophiles are in a special category. We can distinguish their sexual activity from that of violent criminals, muggers or other serious criminals because, as our research appears to show, usually paedophiles are highly manipulative and clever and often their offending behaviour intensifies as they get older. They are in a particularly dangerous category, and the request by the police for some form of register was made to tackle the particularly recognised problem of paedophiles.
That is a sensible starting point. Once those arrangements are in place—bearing in mind the fact that the police will have the administrative burden of dealing with the large number of paedophiles who will register under our proposals—we might be trying to run before we can walk if we try to go much further before we have a successful paedophile register in place.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will the Minister reassure me and the House that the register is not only for paedophiles but is a register of sex offenders? He knows from my recent questions to him that in this

country child prostitution is rife and successful prosecutions against those who entice young people into prostitution are minimal—there have been only six in the past five years. To be effective, a register must be backed by good detection and criminal proceedings.

Mr. Maclean: Of course the hon. Gentleman is right. On his first point, the Bill is properly called the Sex Offenders Bill. For shorthand, we have tended to call it the "paedophiles Bill" and to talk about the paedophiles register, but schedule 1 of the Bill includes not only offences against children, but other sexual offences, including rape.

Mr. Rod Richards: My right hon. Friend said that paedophiles were in a special category. Does he accept that paedophiles are mentally sick people for whom there is no effective treatment, so they should be detained indefinitely? Will he consider that point, and do so in the context of amending the mental health Acts, which effectively would do away ultimately with the need for a register?

Mr. Maclean: I hear what my hon. Friend says. Some paedophiles may fall into that category, but I do not think that all could be defined as such—although I suspect that we would all say that those who kill someone else must be sick to do such a thing. One of the difficulties of dealing with hardened paedophiles is that they do not consider their activities to be wrong; hardened paedophiles believe that the rest of us have set unfair parameters to their sexual activity. They do not believe that having sex with children is wrong—many of them believe that it is a right thing to do and that we are the wrong ones for trying to restrain that activity. That is what makes them especially dangerous, and that is why some are so clever and manipulative.
I do not regard the Bill as a panacea to prevent all sexual offences against children; no measure can do that. No measure can control all paedophiles, but the Bill is a significant step in helping the police to track down the whereabouts of those who may be offending against children. If the police are armed with the information provided under the Bill, it will not only help them to identify suspects once a crime has been committed; it will act as a deterrent to some reoffenders.
I want now to explain the main provisions of this part of the Bill, and to describe the key clauses. The registration requirement will apply in any part of the United Kingdom to all who are convicted of a qualifying offence, either there or in any other part of the UK. It will apply equally to those convicted under courts martial, and to those convicted in the UK of offences committed abroad—under part II of the Bill. In England and Wales, it will also include those who are cautioned for any of those offences.
The qualifying offences are set out in schedule 1. They cover sexual offences involving children, including child pornography offences, and also the most serious sexual offences against adults: all cases of rape and attempted rape, and cases of indecent assault for which a sentence of 30 months' imprisonment or more has been imposed. The Bill is intended to protect children, both boys and girls.
The Government intend to add one further offence to the list set out in schedule 1. We wish to close a loophole in relation to the prohibition on importing indecent and


obscene material featuring children. Difficulties with establishing possession under section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 can sometimes arise; but on the same facts, it is possible to secure a conviction for importation under section 170 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. We shall therefore table an amendment in Committee.
It is the paedophile and the serious sex offender whom we are targeting. That is why a number of offences that would otherwise attract registration have age-related exemptions. Some people have sought to argue that all consensual homosexual acts should be excluded, but we must be careful that, in seeking to exclude consensual sexual offences from the requirement to register, we do not inadvertently place under-18-year-olds at risk. In his article in The Times last Friday, Matthew Parris suggested incorrectly that consensual homosexual acts between adults would be caught by the Bill. The age exemptions focus on consensual teenage sex and adult homosexual acts. By restricting the age exemption in that way, we have been mindful of the possibility of manipulative and coercive pressure being exerted by older people on younger impressionable people.
The requirement to register applies indefinitely to those convicted of the most serious offences—that is, those sentenced to imprisonment for 30 months or more. Those sentenced to shorter periods of imprisonment are required to register for a finite period: up to 10 years if the sentence is more than six months, and seven years for a sentence of six months or less. Non-custodial penalties and cautions will attract a registration period of five years.
Those are significant requirements—rightly so, in the Government's belief. Registration periods need to be long enough to reflect the long-term offending pattern of paedophiles. Should the offender be convicted of a further relevant sex offence, the requirement to register will be extended; or if it is after the expiry of a registration period, a further one will be imposed. Periods of registration also apply to persons found not guilty of one of the schedule 1 offences by reason of insanity or by having been found to be unfit to plead, even though they committed the act with which they have been charged.

Mr. David Alton: Does the Minister recall the harrowing reports last year of two young girls, aged nine and 13, whose charred remains were found in a brothel in Bangkok? Will he assure the House that those guilty of offences committed overseas against children will be included on the register? If that is not done, surely there will be more of an impetus to export sexual offences against children, if British nationals believe that they can commit them abroad with impunity.
Will the Minister comment on whether he thinks that one month's imprisonment is long enough for someone who fails to register?

Mr. Maclean: I shall shortly be commenting on sexual offences committed overseas, in the context of part II; but I believe that it is not possible to require people convicted of any offence abroad to register here. If a paedophile who has committed an offence abroad is convicted in the

United Kingdom, we can certainly impose the requirement, but not on people convicted of any offence overseas who have not been convicted in this country.

Mr. David Mellor: I warmly welcome the Bill, but can my right hon. Friend help me with the thinking behind the point that he was elaborating? He said a very true thing that bears out my experience of more than five years in his office. He said that paedophiles are incorrigible, all the more so because they believe that society is wrong, and that they are not. Clearly, paedophiles are the criminals least likely to mend their ways.
Once the decision has been taken—a major and significant step—to require people convicted of paedophile offences to have their address registered with the police, why is a distinction drawn, based on how long each has been required to serve in prison? That depends on two variables, neither of which is particularly reliable. The first is whether the judge got the initial sentence right. The second is the difference between a fumbled indecent assault and the murder of a child, which depends on how clumsy were the attempts to restrain the child's efforts to protest. That has been my experience. Once people are convicted paedophiles, why should not they remain on the register throughout their lives?

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. and learned Friend makes an interesting point. I believe that we have got the balance about right. It would be difficult to impose a lifetime registration requirement on any person convicted of a sexual offence of the type specified in schedule 1. There may be a philosophical difference between us. I am open to the suggestion that the registration periods are not right, that they could be extended or perhaps that they should be shortened, but it would be a draconian measure to impose a lifetime requirement on any person convicted of any of the sexual offences in the Bill.
The requirement as drafted is quite draconian. For anyone convicted of a sexual offence who gets a sentence of more than 30 months—not a long sentence—there is a lifetime registration requirement. For anyone who gets more than a six-month sentence, there is a registration requirement of 10 years. Those are fairly hefty, but I shall listen carefully to my right hon. and learned Friend's speech if he catches your eye, Madam Speaker. He might be persuasive, but at present he is not.

Mr. Alun Michael: I congratulate the Minister on his approach and on his willingness to listen to other hon. Members' arguments. That is extremely helpful to the atmosphere of debate. The relationship between offences committed abroad, which are listed in schedule 2, and offences committed in this country, which are primarily listed in schedule 1, is extremely important. Is it the case that offences listed in schedule 2—those committed abroad—which the schedule brings within the ambit of United Kingdom law, will therefore require registration in the same way as offences committed in the UK under schedule 1? I note that schedule 2 is more narrowly drawn and I understand the reasons for that, but should there not be a requirement for the registration of offences dealt with under UK law?

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. He may be slightly confused about what I said or by my answer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor).
It is clear that those who are convicted in the United Kingdom of offences in schedule 1 will be required to register. Those who may be convicted of offences overseas would not be required to register. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] That would be impossible. In most cases, we would not know whether people had been convicted overseas. In cases where someone had committed offences overseas that were tried in the UK under part II of the Bill, and the person was convicted in this country of offences committed overseas, the requirement to register would exist.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The Government are likely to be informed about offences committed overseas because, as the Minister well knows, most of the groundwork is performed by an international network of non-governmental organisations that would readily seek to protect children by providing the relevant evidence to the Government. Will the Government reconsider the matter, otherwise there will be a glaring loophole in the legislation?

Mr. Maclean: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reconsiders the enormity of his suggestion. We operate—as does part II of the Bill—the dual criminality test. Everyone who is convicted by a British court of the relevant offences will be required to register. However, the hon. Gentleman suggests a haphazard registration system that would include those who might come to public attention because they had been convicted of an offence in a foreign country. I suspect that the vast bulk of such people would not have to register and that the British dual criminality test would not operate. People might be convicted in foreign countries of offences that are not recognised in British law and that are not compatible with our requirements. For instance, we all know that the age of consent differs between countries. It is a recipe for disaster.
Our prime duty at this stage is to deal with criminals who are convicted in this country of serious sexual offences—there are about 2,000 such cases a year. Once we get that system working correctly, I might be tempted to examine the radical extension that the hon. Gentleman proposes.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the Minister's argument, but I press him to re-examine the matter even before we consider it in Committee. His proposal might send a signal to people who have such tendencies and who would be convicted in a British court to commit those offences abroad. I ask the Minister to reconsider his position.

Mr. Maclean: I am always happy to consider carefully the views expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about an entirely non-political issue such as this. I shall examine carefully all the points that have been made. However, I think that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) focuses on only one narrow question. The Bill has two parts and the second part deals with sex tourists. We intend to introduce powers to prosecute people in this country for offences that they have committed overseas. I think that there will be few such prosecutions in this country, not because people will wish to be prosecuted overseas, but because of the difficulty in obtaining evidence. Britain has a very

good record of extraditing those who have committed offences overseas, and we shall continue that practice provided that the normal rules are satisfied. Those involved then face tough penalties in the countries where the offences were committed.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I welcome the legislation because my first Adjournment debate in the House of Commons addressed the problem of sex tourism in Thailand. We must do all that we can to ensure that people do not escape the law in this country by perpetrating dreadful acts abroad. I urge my right hon. Friend to reconsider the case of someone who travels abroad and who is tried and convicted abroad of a serious sexual offence. Is it not better to catch some such paedophiles on the register in this country rather than saying. "Oh well, people will fall through the net, so we had better have none rather than some"?

Mr. Maclean: I am not sure how our obligations under the European Court of Human Rights would be affected by a provision that said, "We shall impose draconian conditions on those whom we know about but not upon those who have been convicted abroad but whose convictions have not come to our attention." That is not a sensible way to proceed legislatively.
If serious sexual criminals from this country are returned to foreign countries to stand trial, the National Criminal Intelligence Service will know about it. That organisation keeps tabs on such people, and it will notify the police if they return to this country after they have served their sentences. The National Criminal Intelligence Service performs a valuable liaison and intelligence role in keeping the police informed of the whereabouts of the most serious paedophiles and sexual offenders.
I am conscious of the fact that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, so I must make progress.
Clause 2 defines the nature of the notification requirement. Any change of name or address must be registered within 14 days, either by personal attendance at a police station or by written notice to the police. The Government intend to tighten the notification requirement in the light of further views put to us by the police, who have argued that in practice they will need fuller information, to ensure the proper identification of the offender furnishing the information.
We shall therefore be tabling an amendment to require a person to notify his name and address at the time of conviction, his last notified name and address, his date of birth and the information which he is notifying the police has changed. We shall also be requiring that notification be made to a police station in the police force area where the offender's address falls. That will remove unnecessary administrative burdens from the police and will be more effective in ensuring that the local force is the first to know.
Clause 3 makes failure to comply with the requirement, or false notification, a criminal offence. At present, the penalty is a fine of up to £1,000—that is level 3 on the standard scale—or up to one month's imprisonment, or both. Once again, we have reflected further in the light of views expressed since the Bill was published, from a number of bodies including those concerned with the protection of children, as well as the police. The penalty in the Bill was decided upon in the light of responses to the original consultation.
We are now persuaded, however, that a more severe penalty would provide a more effective incentive in persuading offenders to comply with the registration requirement. We shall therefore be tabling an amendment to raise the maximum penalty to a period of imprisonment of up to six months or a fine of up to £5,000—that is level 5 on the standard scale—or both. We shall also table an amendment making it clear that the offence of failing to register, or false registration, is one that will continue to be triable beyond the normal six-month period for a summary offence.
I take the opportunity to thank those who have commented on the proposals set out in the Bill since it was published, enabling us to announce some sensible amendments even before the Bill is considered in Committee.
Clause 4 sets out certain provisions that relate to young offenders. The periods of registration that would otherwise be applicable, be they five, seven or 10 years, are halved for offenders under 18 years of age, and a custodial sentence cannot be imposed for non-compliance. In addition, the court has the power to direct that a parent or guardian should bear the responsibility for complying with the requirements if the offender is under 18, or under 16 in Scotland.
In some circumstances, the registration requirement will apply also to those convicted of relevant offences in the past. Those offenders still in contact with the criminal justice system—those in prison or on probation, for example—will be required to register. Those still in prison will be required to register after release if the period of registration from the date of their conviction for a qualifying offence still has time to run.
It would be a vast undertaking to track the many thousands who would be involved and then to calculate who should still be subject to registration having regard to the length of sentence originally imposed upon them. It would be a still greater exercise to subject all those persons to a fresh risk assessment, as some have suggested. We concluded that it would be impracticable to place such an obligation at large in that way.
Having examined the measures taken to protect children from sexual abuse in the United Kingdom, I come to the vile activities of British citizens and British residents who commit offences against children abroad.

Mr. Thurnham: Does the Minister agree that probably more than 50,000 previous offenders will not be within the terms of the Bill as constituted? It will be decades, therefore, before the register is of any use to anyone.

Mr. Maclean: I disagree with the last part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The register will be of immediate use when it is set up. It will contain over 2,000 names a year from England alone. The hon. Gentleman is right in the first part of his observations, however, in that there are likely to be about 50,000 people—that is, if we go back far enough—who have been convicted of a sexual offence. Some of those previously convicted may still be active paedophiles. Equally, many of them will no longer offend.
It would be impossible to track down those who have been convicted since 1956, when the Sexual Offences Act was introduced, or who were convicted before the war.

Some people would be in their 60s or 70s. We would have to go way back in taking account of a 70-year-old, for example, who was convicted in the 1920s, 1930s or 1940s of certain offences that do not match current offences. Assuredly, some homosexual acts would be brought into consideration, committed with or without consent. We would have a dog's breakfast on our hands. We are talking of information that the police would find impossible to make sense of and to assimilate.
I am happy to listen to what the hon. Gentleman has to say if he wishes to explain in detail—that is, if he catches your eye, Madam Speaker—the report that appeared in the weekend press. On the basis of the information that he provided over the weekend, I do not think that it is practicable to try to track back every sex offender who passed through the United Kingdom's criminal justice system and then to subject those people to a new risk assessment.
It is of deep concern to the Government that people from this country are among those who travel to countries where child prostitution is rife and sexually abuse young children there. Parliament recently showed its commitment to addressing the particular problem of child sex tourism when it enacted the Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Act 1996. It recognised the importance of extending the jurisdiction of our courts over acts of conspiracy or incitement in the United Kingdom to commit sexual offences against children abroad.
The question of taking extra-territorial jurisdiction over the offences themselves presented the UK with some difficulties, and has required some pretty careful thought. The requirement of oral testimony and the right of the defence to cross-examine witnesses are central to criminal trials in this country, and it is, therefore, much more difficult for us than it is for many other countries to mount successful prosecutions for offences committed abroad. Nevertheless, it was right that the Government should have considered carefully the concerns expressed to us, and in the light of those concerns, we set up an interdepartmental review of extra-territorial jurisdiction to consider the general position.
That review, which reported in July last year, confirmed that considerable practical difficulties would be involved in obtaining sufficient evidence and witnesses from abroad, but concluded that some prosecutions could be successful in certain circumstances. In view of that, and the particularly serious and unpleasant nature of the offences concerned, the Government concluded that extra-territorial jurisdiction could be justified in this case.
Clause 7, therefore, makes it an offence in England and Wales or Northern Ireland to commit, in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, the offences listed in schedule 2. For England and Wales and Northern Ireland, those will be the same as those covered by the Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Act 1996, which include rape, sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 16, buggery, and indecent assault on a child. In addition, the major child pornography offences will be covered.
The clause applies to offences committed by British citizens and residents of the United Kingdom.
The jurisdiction of the courts would be extended in that way only where the conduct concerned was a criminal offence both in the United Kingdom jurisdiction and in the territory of the state where it was committed. That is


the so-called dual criminality test, and it is an important safeguard. We in this Parliament rightly consider that it is our function to pass laws that apply in the territory of the United Kingdom. We would take great exception if the law-making body of another country attempted to pass laws that would apply here. Equally, therefore, we must not attempt to export our laws overseas. The dual criminality test avoids that trap. The Bill provides that the test is to be taken as satisfied unless the defence shows grounds for believing that it is not so satisfied; in which case, it is a matter for the courts to decide.
Clause 8 contains the similar Scottish provisions. They are framed slightly differently from those applying in the other United Kingdom jurisdictions because of the differences in Scots law. For instance, several of the offences caught by the Bill in Scotland are common law rather than statutory offences. However, the effect is essentially the same in all jurisdictions.
The provisions will supplement the Government's other activities in discouraging child prostitution worldwide. We continue to believe that the best place for prosecutions is the country in which the offences are committed. If a British tourist was accused of abusing children overseas, we would look to the authorities in the country concerned to prosecute him under their own laws. This country, unlike many others, has no barrier to the extradition of our own nationals, provided of course that the normal extradition safeguards are satisfied. However, if extradition is not possible for any reason, for offences as obnoxious as these, it is right to make the necessary commitment to bring perpetrators to justice here.
The Government have a proud record in the fight against sex offending, particularly offences against children. That was clear from the prominent role that we were able to play at last August's world congress on the commercial sexual exploitation of children, in which the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), who will be winding up the debate, took a leading part. But there is always more to be done, and the Bill before the House today marks an important next step forward. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Alun Michael: I welcome the Bill, and give an assurance that we will work with the Government to get it through as quickly as possible—although I hope that we can improve it in some respects during the process. We promise to do what we can to work positively, particularly in Committee.
I also welcome much of what the Minister has said. He promised to introduce a number of amendments, and, although we shall need to examine the drafting of those amendments carefully, from what the Minister has said it seems that they will be helpful and positive. He has expressed a willingness to listen to representations on points of detail, and I think that we can look forward to constructive discussion during the Bill's passage.
Nevertheless—despite the Minister's positive approach—I regret the way in which the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister delayed the introduction of the Bill. I remind the House that this is yet another example of Labour's setting the law and order agenda, and forcing the Government to take action against paedophiles. For a long time, the Government rejected Labour's call for

domestic prosecutions against child sex tourists from Britain, and last year they blocked attempts by Labour Members—in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson)—to set up a national register of paedophiles.
Despite a clear statement from the Home Secretary at the Conservative party conference in October that he was taking action on paedophiles and child sex tourists, both proposals were dropped from the Queen's Speech, and only after the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the Leader of the Opposition, did the Prime Minister—in one of the fastest U-turns in political history—accept the case for Government action.
I welcome the Minister's conversion in relation to offences committed abroad, which he has had to reject in a number of debates in which he and I have participated over the past couple of years. Having made that point—because I do not think that it is a piece of history that should be completely disregarded—I assure the Minister that we will co-operate with the Government to put the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible, and to ensure that it targets, in an appropriate way, those who should be targeted.
Important practical questions must be answered, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will answer some of them at the end of today's debate. First, what will the Government do to ensure that the introduction of the legislation is effective in practice?
Secondly, how will information be held? Given the current stage of the development of information technology, it should be possible for information to be updated rapidly and made available throughout the country, without the difficulties that have featured in the keeping of manual records in the past. Are the Government acting to ensure that, from the outset, the information that is registered is up to date, and accessible to all who need to use it? Thirdly, how will the information be used? The question of access is not covered in the Bill.
Even more important, what is to be done with information that is registered with the police? I can tell the Minister that chief constables are not sure what their responsibilities will be. Their initial reaction is that information will have to be passed on; but to whom, and in what circumstances? That, too, is not covered in the Bill. It is important to have clear and effective guidelines on how information is used.
It may well be—I offer this as a suggestion to the Minister—that an amendment to the Bill, enabling the Home Secretary to set out clear guidelines in a statutory instrument after consulting widely, would ensure the existence of a protocol subject to scrutiny by the House, but absolutely clear to those holding the information. I think that it is only fair to the police to make it clear what they are expected to do with that information, and also in the interests of the public for everyone to be clear about the way in which that information is to be used and acted on.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Much of the good work in the Philippines, Thailand and other countries is done by British non-governmental organisations. Does my hon. Friend incline to the view that responsible organisations should in certain circumstances be able to consult the


register here to find out whether individuals they suspect of being involved in paedophile activities in those countries are registered here?

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the way in which information about paedophiles is exchanged between countries. Access from people overseas to the register is different from access by British NGOs. It is a sensible point to consider in Committee, and I hope that the Minister, who said that he would listen to points made during the debate, will consider that one. I look forward to discussing the point in Committee.
To return to the practicalities of handling the information, there is the question of how the registration of information in the Bill relates to the Police Bill, which we will be debating in the near future. We also need to set the Sex Offenders Bill in context with other activities in which Government should be taking a lead. The Minister has presented the Bill as part of a coherent strategy, but a real strategy needs action by Ministers, not just legislation, important though Acts of Parliament should be.
I am sure that the Minister agrees that the low level of sex offence convictions is worrying, that the high level of abuse shown by different indicators is a matter of concern, and that there is the wider context of child protection, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) will particularly deal with in the debate. We cannot just shrug off the responsibility of dealing with these issues to local authorities and social workers. There must be a proper understanding of the problem, and a lead from Government.
The extent of the problem is illustrated, for instance, by the fact that, in 1994–95, Childline counselled more than 89,000 children about all sorts of problems and concerns, but 21 per cent. of those counselled—more than 18,000—rang about physical or sexual abuse, and often both. The recorded crime statistics do not always identify the age of the victim, but it is sufficient to point out that, for unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13, there were 178 convictions in 1995—considerably lower than two years earlier—that there were 1,287 convictions for gross indecency with a child, 3,150 convictions for indecent assault on a male, 4,986 convictions for rape of a female, and 150 convictions for rape of a male—although, as a new offence, that last statistic may be less reliable.
There is considerable evidence of the extent of the problem. For instance, "The Cook Report" questioned more than 300 child sex offenders in prison. The findings are clear. The programme said:
Our respondents told the police they'd committed between them some four thousand eight hundred offences, but in truth, as the survey shows, the total was nearer fifty thousand. We also asked them how long they'd got away with it before they were caught and these are fairly typical examples. This man, nine a half years, this man fifteen, this man nearly twenty, and this one a staggering thirty-two.
Like the Minister, I feel that, to an extent, we are dealing with the tip of the iceberg. It is therefore important to set the Bill in context against the nature of the problem as a whole.
That has led to organisations welcoming the Bill as a step forward, but seeking to remind us of the context. For instance, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children said:
A Child Sexual Offenders Register will assist in the protection of children, but it must be co-ordinated with other measures which will offer a more complete package of protection. For example, there must be improved vetting procedures linked to a public education campaign about child sexual abusers.
It also calls for investigation systems in court procedures that will offer a comprehensive package of child protection.
Getting the law right is one aspect of the matter, and I do not underestimate its importance, but the systems that are used to investigate, prosecute and try offenders and the way in which the wider context of child sex abuse is dealt with are also extremely important. We deal only with what we put in legislation at our peril. I hope that, during the debate or in Committee, we will go further and set the measure in context. The Minister sought to set it in the context of other legislation, but in terms of this measure, we need to look at the Government's wider responsibilities.
Recently, some of my hon. Friends from a number of Front-Bench teams met representatives of children's charities to discuss issues that worry those charities. The need for co-operation and co-ordination between the public and private sectors came out as a clarion call from those discussions, and it was clear that that is not the way that the public and voluntary sectors are used to operating. In the light of that, I note the comments on the Bill by the Children's Charities Consortium:
whilst the Bill's purpose is to be welcomed, it can only form a very limited part of a much more comprehensive response to child sexual abuse. The majority of children are not abused by convicted offenders and that in the minority of cases where prosecution follows the disclosure of abuse, the rate of convictions remain disturbingly low.
In relation to prosecution, the consortium calls for the full implementation of the Pigot committee's recommendations on children's evidence. The Opposition, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), have been pressing for that for many years. There are concerns about the way in which judges use the facilities currently available to them, and that matter needs to be pursued.
On the other side of the equation, Liberty and others have expressed concern at the possibility that some people who are not a danger to children or to other adults may be inadvertently affected by the Bill. I welcome the Minister's acknowledgement of that. I am not sure that the targeting is yet sufficiently precise, and I hope that the Minister will listen to constructive debate in Committee. There is also a risk that we might miss some offenders who are a danger to children. For example, a 13-year-old girl who was subjected to abuse by a man who is just under 20 would not be caught by the register as it stands.
I understand the difficulty of targeting such cases, which the Minister and I have debated in the past. However, if we use the clear consensus to target the right offenders in the right way, amendments could be used to fine-tune the legislation. The issue of child sex offences overseas has been mentioned, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson).

Mr. Julian Brazier: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could expand what he said earlier. He said that


the vast majority of acts of abuse were not committed by convicted criminals, and that they could make up only a small part of the total. Many hon. Members agree that we need to use the Pigot committee recommendations. Does the hon. Gentleman think that a register should include information on those against whom there are strong grounds for suspecting child abuse—perhaps even grounds that have been tested under civil conditions in court? Is the hon. Gentleman arguing for the broadening of the register?

Mr. Michael: I am certainly not asking for that at this stage. The Government left that as an open question for the future, and there is enough to be done at this time in targeting convicted abusers. There is considerable evidence that many convicted people have a string of offences over a long time. Therefore, some of the most dangerous abusers are in that category.
I should make the point—which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport will deal with again later in the debate—that other registers exist in education and social work. We should be clear about how the Bill's provisions will fit in with those registers. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) was right to highlight the problem, but the Bill deals with specific, targeted activity. We have enough problems in dealing with that activity without now attempting to deal with the issue too generally. I believe that the Government came to that conclusion—although the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—and I think that it is the right conclusion.

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman's summary of the Government's position is about right. Trying to impose a registration requirement on people whom the police suspect are apt to abuse would be a very radical measure. How would people know that they were supposed to register if the police have not told them that they are suspect of activities? I do not know how we could force people to register if they are merely suspected of abuse.
However, I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury that, if police and their local intelligence systems have information on individuals, they will maintain that information. There is no requirement for an individual to register. If the person seeks a job, however, the police may share their information—there are proposals on access to criminal records—with relevant child protection agencies.

Mr. Michael: The Minister's remarks confirm the Government's view—which is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House—on how far we should proceed now, and leaves open the possibility of linking and developing information in records in future, when more experience has been gained.
In the past, the Minister and I have stressed the need for international co-operation on child sex offences overseas. It is much easier to agree with him now that he has accepted extra-territorial jurisdiction, at least in some cases. I ask him to consider—as hon. Members asked in earlier interventions—provision for registration of offences abroad, at least in the clearest and most flagrant cases. Such provision would be consistent with his earlier remarks, especially if it were part of a wider protocol and of the development of agreements between nations on how to deal with that international problem.
I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that few crimes are more appalling and devastating than sexual crimes committed by adults against young children. The Labour party has clearly and often expressed its position on the issue, and, in June 1996, published "Protecting our Children". As they are already on the record, I shall not go into the document's details now.
However, the document stresses the point that measures must be complementary if we are to deal adequately with the problem. It is vital to ensure that our procedures for tackling child sexual abuse are as effective as possible, and that the Bill's objectives are efficient and well-targeted. In that context, we look forward to considering the Bill's details in Committee.
In the debate on the Crime (Sentences) Bill, we underlined the importance of the effectiveness and availability—in prison and in the community—of treatment programmes for convicted and unconvicted sex offenders.
There are some problems in the Bill's details on targeting, as some of those who should be covered by the registration requirements may be missed out. There are also problems in ensuring that the Bill's provisions do not apply accidentally to those who are not a danger to others, and particularly not a danger to children. The Minister made it clear that, so far as possible, his intention is to hit the right targets, not unintended targets. I accept that assurance, and offer to work with him to help to fine-tune the Bill. I believe that we can make constructive proposals towards a well-targeted measure.
I should point out the dangers of the Bill's current phraseology in respect of notification of address. It requires the address of a person's
sole or main residence in the United Kingdom".
Why is it limited to that? People in a number of professions have more than one important address—the office of Member of Parliament springs to mind. Most hon. Members spend a considerable part of each week at two different addresses. Many people who work in London are in similar circumstances, as are people who live in one part of the country and work in another. Should that not be covered in the Bill?
A person may have a flat or home in one place, but spend part of the week with a partner, who may have young children. That could cause difficulties, as the Minister well understands. The Bill does not cover those circumstances. There is no requirement for offenders to inform the police where they spend the most significant part of their time.
Commercial travellers, business people and lorry drivers travel a great deal, and there have been examples of that being relevant to offending behaviour. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board, and that we will be able to amend the Bill in Committee.
There are also problems in that the public will assume that the police have certain information once the register becomes law. It is important that the register should not only aid the investigation of new sex crimes but act as a deterrent to those on the register and assist agencies that offer treatment programmes.
I do not know whether the Minister heard a former offender being interviewed on radio last Thursday night. That individual acknowledged that he would always be a danger. He was reminiscent of a former alcoholic when


he spoke about the danger of constant temptation. Unlike the people to whom the Minister referred, he acknowledged the long-term nature of that danger. I am sure that the Minister accepts that the fine tuning of the Bill should reflect the need to offer such people help and the opportunity to avoid further offending, as well as the capacity to assist the police in investigating offences.
Some organisations have expressed concern about the Bill in respect of cautions. As a caution requires the admission of guilt, some of those fears may be misplaced. Perhaps the Bill should be amended in Committee, however, as a lack of clarity could produce unintended consequences.
Finally, it is important in this and other legislation not only to be sure that information is available to employers who are considering taking someone on—whether they are public bodies, in the voluntary sector or private organisations involved in activities such as child minding—but to provide for clear checks on employers. The Government did not accept that proposal in respect of the private security industry, where there is clear evidence of offenders running companies. However, it becomes even more important in respect of the care of children.
This is an important measure, which should be targeted on offenders who are a danger to children and others. It is important for the confidence of the public that we are clear about what will happen to the information on the register, and that the police and other agencies will work together to ensure that appropriate action is taken to avoid reoffending. Those issues need to be dealt with in the House. I welcome the Minister's acknowledgement of that, and I look forward to a constructive—albeit brief, I hope—Committee stage, so that the Bill can be improved and can pass on its way without delay. I welcome the Bill and the spirit in which the Minister has introduced it.

Mr. David Mellor: I echo the welcome given to the Bill by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) from the Labour Front Bench. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on bringing it forward. The approach of those on both Front Benches to the Bill is a model of how Parliament should operate. On some subjects, deep and often embittered partisanship is inevitable. On others, hon. Members do the House no disservice by working together, pooling our experiences and talking sensibly about an issue that is beyond party politics but is of fundamental importance.
I shall not waste precious time saying how much I agree with the Bill when so many others want to speak. However, although I do not want to appear to be making the best the enemy of the good, there are ways in which the Bill could be improved. I see it in a John the Baptist role, pointing the way towards further changes that may become inevitable, following the thinking behind the Bill. I entirely accept that it will be a major achievement to get the Bill on the statute book before the election. I do not want any of my thoughts to impede that progress, but it is important to look ahead to work which the next Parliament will have to do on this important topic.
The Bill applies to all sex offenders, but to avoid exceeding reasonable time, so that everyone who wishes to participate in the debate has the chance to, I shall confine my remarks to paedophiles.
I should like to return to the point that I raised with the Minister. It is in no sense a carping point. I appreciated what he said about the nature of paedophilia. It is important that we understand it. Many hon. Members have extensive experience of working in the courts, including the hon. Member—I could almost call him my hon. Friend without embarrassment—for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who has had many years at the Bar, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). I have also had extensive experience working in courts and spent a number of years discharging the Home Secretary's discretion, under his superintendence, on the release of mentally disordered offenders and others. That experience brought me face to face rather starkly with the problems of paedophiles.
Many middle-aged and elderly men who now sit in armchairs tut-tutting about the crime wave and the behaviour of the younger generation were, in their day, teddy boys, mods or rockers, and engaged in all manner of anti-social and often criminal activity. However, people grow out of such behaviour. The teenage burglar, the teenager who takes and drives away, or the teenage serial offender, often grows out of all that—and thank goodness they do, because, if certain people continued offending in adult life at the rate at which they offended in their teens, the situation would be pretty sad.
That is not true for paedophiles, as my right hon. Friend the Minister eloquently pointed out. Paedophilia is perhaps the most deep-seated of all the perverse emotions and feelings with which people can be inculcated. We talk about paedophiles being "cured". I suspect that paedophilia is an inherent problem rather than one that people acquire. We therefore have to think about how it can be controlled. It is a variant of pathetic fallacy to think that it can be cured. I know of no basis on which it can be cured. It is a particularly devastating problem.
Many crimes are vicious and unpleasant, but the crime of sexually abusing a young child, robbing that child of its innocence and sometimes of its life, is surely so repugnant that we are entitled to look for special ways of dealing with it and making clear society's abhorrence of such activities.

Mr. Thurnham: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mellor: I should like to develop my argument. I shall not take a long time.
As the Minister so eloquently said, the problem with paedophilia is that so deep-seated is the paedophile's predilection that he is likely to think that society is wrong.
How many of us remember trying to outlaw the Paedophile Information Exchange some years ago? In countries such as the Netherlands, these people are still allowed to move about freely, which has caused the problems that have emerged in Belgium. Allowing them to spread and proliferate suddenly brings a dreadful day of reckoning. Anyone who has seen the national outpouring of grief and concern that followed the discovery of the activities of the paedophile ring in Belgium will know that we must not allow our country to deteriorate to that extent.
Against that background, I should like to make one detailed point. Because of the difficulties of getting children to give evidence on oath and obtaining convictions based on the uncorroborated evidence of a child—even though the Government have been able to make significant changes to prevent the evidential burden from being heavily against the child, some of them during my time at the Home Office—no more than 5 or 10 per cent. of paedophile cases come to the attention of the courts. Few experts would disagree with that—my right hon. Friend the Minister will have access to more experts than I do. When cases come to court, we should not create artificial barriers to prevent the full weight of the Bill from being brought to bear on paedophiles while they are likely to remain active.
I mentioned in an intervention that may have gone on too long the important point—at least, I think that it is an important point, and I hope that I can persuade others to agree with me—that it is profoundly unlikely that a person just dabbles in paedophilia. Once a paedophile, always a paedophile, is a much more certain saying than once a burglar, always a burglar, or even once a rapist, always a rapist.
I appreciate that there is a tendency not to go too far, and to offer a few concessions to those who oppose a measure. I understand why the barriers at 10 years and six or seven years have been introduced, but where is the opposition to the measure? I do not see it.
I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is involved in the Home Secretary's discretion on life sentence prisoners, but when he considers dreadful child sex murders and looks at the previous convictions, he will realise that rarely does the tendency come out of the blue—there is normally a sign. It is rarely an equally serious matter, but lurking somewhere in the past is the clear evidence that the person in question has that particular intent.
We are being asked to legislate on the basis that judges—almost as fragile a breed as politicians, as likely to get things wrong as right—pass the right sentence. My experience does not suggest that that is invariably—or even very often—the case.
I know from reading more than 1,000 life sentence prisoner cases when I was at the Home Office, many of which involved the sexual or sadistic murder of children, that the difference between a nasty sexual assault and murder is not great. A child protests at the indignities that it suffers. The clumsiness and crudeness of the attempts to suppress that child's resistance will often make the difference between an offence that can be written off as indecent assault, punishable by a few months' imprisonment, and a murder, punishable by life imprisonment.

Mrs. Llin Golding: I strongly support what the right hon. and learned Member is saying. He has identified the same issue as I picked out. Is it not true that many judges are not trained to deal with sexual cases, and pass too many lenient sentences, even when the children get caught? Only a fortnight ago, a case was brought up in the House. That case has gone back to the Court of Appeal because of the leniency of the sentence. The barrier of seven or 10 years seems artificial.

Mr. Mellor: I am glad that the hon. Member has mentioned that point. She was an indefatigable

campaigner on these issues back in the 1980s when I was doing the job that my right hon. Friend the Minister is doing now. I welcome her further intervention.
I found myself on television this morning discussing the case of Myra Hindley with someone who took the view that she should be released, and who thought that politicians should not intervene in such cases because they were a matter for the judiciary. However, I well remember how in 1983, when Leon Brittan, with my assistance, decided that the minimum period of imprisonment for those who were convicted of the sadistic or sexual murder of a child should be 20 years, there was an outcry from the judiciary. I regularly saw cases in which the Lord Chief Justice of the day would recommend only 14 years of imprisonment for such a murder.
Against that background, I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to put into practice the conviction he so eloquently expressed about the deep-seated nature of paedophilia. Given that, to use the old cliché—I suppose that clichés become clichés because they are true—we are dealing only with the tip of the iceberg when we deal with the cases that come before the courts, I ask my right hon. Friend please to make the law apply to all these people. In the sexual lifetime of an adult, seven years is the twinkling of an eye, and 10 years is not much more. We would have cause to regret somebody escaping the full force of the recommendations merely because their conviction became time-expired. That is one change to the Bill that it would not be difficult to make.
I now move on to matters that are probably too difficult to deal with at this time, but which relate so directly to the Bill that it is worth at least pointing ahead.
Having decided that it is right that the police should be able to keep tabs on people and that their addresses should be notified, we shall have to confront the problem—I am slightly surprised that the point has not been raised already in this debate—that is already quite commonplace in America. The problem is that, if the police have a right to know, why do the public not have the right to know? If someone with a string of convictions for sexual offences against children moves into a house, why should the nice young family living next door not be told about him? Why should the community not be told?
I understand all the points about vigilantes and about people taking the law into their own hands. We need, however, to consider carefully the right way in which to deal with the problem. If we believe that paedophiles are in a category entirely on their own, we should consider whether it would be appropriate to take the exceptional step of saying that, when a paedophile lives in a neighbourhood, all those living in the neighbourhood should know.
My right hon. Friend the Minister is right. One reason for requiring registration with the police is that it becomes easy for the police to trace someone who may have been responsible for a terrible offence. The other reason is deterrence; someone will feel that he is under pressure. It is a way of putting likely persistent offenders under pressure and telling them that they are unlikely to get away with the crime if they give way to their urges in a way that causes serious harm to young and vulnerable children. I believe that, in the longer run, we shall be hard put to resist the claims, which will undoubtedly come, that something should be done so that the public are let in on the secret about who is living in their street.
It is important that, although we see the Bill as a significant step forward, we do not make too many large claims for it. I want to draw attention to two recent cases which show how much further we shall have to go if we are serious about tackling the problem of paedophiles.
I refer first to the murder of Sophie Hook. Sophie's father Christopher is someone I know well; I have discussed these matters with him, and I know that he has also discussed them with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. Indeed, he discussed them with him back in November, and he raised with him the question whether the public should be told where convicted sex offenders lived. My right hon. and learned Friend undertook to talk to the Association of Chief Police Officers about the matter. Two months on, it would be interesting to know whether there has been any response. I am sure that not only Christopher Hook but some of the rest of us would like to know what the Home Office's latest thinking on the matter is.
Sophie Hook was a nine-year-old. She was not one of the "streetwise" children we are told about—poor little mites who are left to wander the street by parents who do not care about them, and who are therefore in a vulnerable state. Sophie Hook was a cherished child, who illustrated the fact that good parents are as vulnerable as bad parents to having their children abducted; that is a salutary lesson for all of us.
On a hot night two summers ago while on holiday, Sophie Hook was sleeping in a tent with her two cousins in a garden in north Wales. From there, she was abducted by a creature called Howard Hughes. He was notorious in his neighbourhood for his paedophile and other anti-social tendencies, and was regarded as a ticking time bomb. He was 6 ft 8 in tall, and wandered round the town dragging his rottweiler behind him; everyone was afraid of him. Sophie Hook, aged nine, was taken out of the tent, sexually abused, battered, beaten, tossed into the sea and left to die.
The Bill will do nothing about Howard Hughes. We have to ask ourselves a question which came up, strangely enough, on television; television stations are usually the least likely places to find a real insight rather than a soundbite. I appeared on "Heart of the Matter" with Chris Hook to discuss the issue. One of the foremost forensic psychiatrists dealing with the problems of paedophiles put in a nutshell the dilemma we face as legislators, when he said that the trouble was that we were concerned with punishment and not with dealing with dangerousness.
Howard Hughes could not be punished, because, until he abducted Sophie Hook, he had not done anything for a good many years that the courts could pick up on; but he was manifestly dangerous and known to be dangerous, to the extent that, when Sophie's body was found, everybody in the district said, "Well, it's Howard Hughes. It must be him."
There is an issue that we shall have to leave hanging in the air for the moment, but which we shall have to grasp eventually. If we are indeed of the view that to be a paedophile is to be beyond the pale, if we wish to protect our children, and if we know that paedophilia is a deep-seated instinct—once someone is known to be a paedophile, they are known to be a ticking time bomb—is there not a case, as one of my hon. Friends said earlier,

for some kind of finding to be permitted to the courts? It would not necessarily rank as a conviction, but might be equivalent to being bound over to keep the peace, which is not a conviction, but which sometimes operates as a deterrent against the bad behaviour of certain ill-disciplined people.
Could we not have a finding of being a paedophile, whereby some form of supervision was carried out on people such as Howard Hughes, to the extent that, if the framework of good behaviour set out by that supervision was disobeyed, it would be possible for some form of preventive detention to be imposed? If not, we shall always find ourselves being wise after the event. It sounds tremendous to say that there will be life imprisonment after the second serious offence, but that second offence is predicated on the fact that two innocent youngsters will have to suffer horribly before society nerves itself to take action. We need to think about that.
That point leads me to the second case that I want to bring forward, without wearying the House—the case of Trevor Holland. He came to the notice of some as recently as last summer, when, having been convicted as a serious paedophile, he was taken to Chessington World of Adventure on a day trip. It was rather like taking an alcoholic to a brewery for a little R and R. Trevor Holland absconded, and there was a great deal of concern about the case.
It might be worth considering the case of Trevor Holland again. He was convicted of a serious assault against a 12-year-old boy, and he went to prison for a number of years. He would therefore be caught by the Bill, and would have to register his address. However, when Trevor Holland was released from prison, he made threatening telephone calls to the home of his victim, blaming the victim for the fact that he had been in prison and saying that he would go round and sort out the victim and his family. He put those people in fear, but they were then told by the police that they could do nothing until something happened.
Interestingly, such was the danger posed by Trevor Holland that it was found possible under the mental health Acts to detain him last summer—I hope that he is still detained—not because he was still serving the prison sentence for the offence of which he had been convicted, but because he was regarded as a danger to the public. Somehow, the authorities found a basis on which to confine him under the mental health Acts, but they had to bring into use Acts that were not intended to be used in that way.
It should not be too long, if we are serious about paedophilia, before a proper court or tribunal is set up to make a finding about paedophile tendencies, and, as a consequence, a form of lifelong supervision is introduced—which could be waived at some point if good behaviour was evident—that would allow society to intervene before rather than after a terrible event. In that way, we could close the stable door before the horse had bolted.
In a sense, my speech has been a mixed message. Yes, the law will be improved by the Bill, and I hope that this afternoon's spirit of co-operation will prevail through the remaining stages and take it on to the statute book before the election. However, we have taken only a small bite out of the problem, and many terrible cases will continue to happen. We will have to screw our courage to the


sticking place and take further, severe action if we are to curb some of the worst cases that have been reported in the newspapers in recent months and have caused us so much dismay.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I have long supported the calls for the Bill, as have many other right hon. and hon. Members present—the old gang. I was an Opposition spokesman on home affairs for four years. The right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) disagreed with me on many issues, but we agreed on one or two, and one of them was the protection of children.
The Bill is not just about paedophilia. I want to talk about a category of people who will be covered because they are the same kind of wrong-doers as paedophiles. They are evil people who take away childhood and innocence. That is why the House should concentrate carefully on the Bill. I was pleased by both Front Benchers' speeches, because it was made obvious that the Bill can be improved in Committee, even if we have a short Committee stage, perhaps more than any other Bill that I have taken an interest in.
The Bill covers not just paedophiles who take children's innocence away: it also covers those who entice children into prostitution. When I first entered the House, if we talked about paedophiles, people did not want to know. It was an unpopular subject and people thought that there were just one or two crazed individuals who might be interested in that kind of perversion. I pay tribute to the former hon. Member—now, sadly, deceased—Geoffrey Dickens, who represented Huddersfield, West when I represented Huddersfield, East. He introduced the subject to the House and made much headway in bringing the subject to our attention. I remember when he first spoke in the House; people were not interested, or found the subject amusing, but we have learnt more about paedophiles and their ghastly interests over the years and now we have the Bill.
Many people think that they would have to take a trip to Bangkok to find out about child prostitution. We know the figures for child prostitutes—between 200,000 and 800,000—in Asia, but child prostitution is also rife in this country. There are child prostitutes down the road from the Palace of Westminster, and child prostitutes are available in most towns and cities in the country. Investigation and research into the problem shows that there is a cycle of abuse of young people who run away from home or who are enticed from home and are found on the streets. The problems do not start with young people of 15 and a half, but at 11, 12, and 13—a very young age.
There are real problems in dealing with child prostitution, and the national register will not be effective unless we do something more positive about the problem of the exploitation of children. That exploitation goes deep and starts very young. Often, a group of men—it is normally men—find young, innocent children, usually girls, who can be seduced into a way of life. Evidence shows that groups of men specialise in enticing young children into a relationship that leads, inevitably, to prostitution. We know those people as pimps—people who live off the immoral earnings of, usually, women.
I looked at the statistics in preparation for the debate. It is worrying that the number of prosecutions of pimps has declined. Ten years ago, there were 150 successful

prosecutions for the offence of living off immoral earnings, but that figure declined to about 50 in the last year of record. Even more worrying, 10 years ago there were three recorded successful prosecutions for the offence of enticement of children into prostitution, but in the past 11 years there have been only 16 successful such prosecutions. How does that square with the fact that child prostitution is rife, as any hon. Member will find if he talks to his chief constable?
The figures are not the police's fault for not prosecuting offenders. The problem, under our law, is that if the police see an under-age child working as a prostitute—on the game, as it is called—their prime responsibility is her welfare. They must take her out of that way of life and put her into a safe place or into care. That is the real problem because successful prosecutions for living off immoral earnings depend on surveillance.

Mr. Tom Cox: My hon. Friend is making an important point and the south London area that I represent suffers from the problems that he has mentioned. Does he agree that we also have to deal with television companies that give enormous publicity to that way of life, which undoubtedly has a serious effect on many youngsters? It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us what action he intends to take to stem the glorification of child prostitution.

Mr. Sheerman: While researching this issue, I have watched and listened to all the investigative programmes on television and radio over the past two or three years. I hear what my hon. Friend says, but must disagree with him in one sense. Good television and radio programmes have drawn the subject to the public's attention. Indeed, their attention has been focused on the subject as a result of some very good programmes, especially those on Radio 4, Roger Cook's on Central Television, and others, which have addressed the issue, highlighted it and reminded us all of what is going on. The issue has been addressed not only by television and radio programmes, but by The Children's Society, in its report "The Game's Up", which redefines child prostitution.
The difficulty of which the House should be aware is that, if we do not tackle the police's problems identifying the people who entice others on to our streets as prostitutes, our poor record of targeting evil pimps, prosecuting them and putting them in prison will continue.
There is an anomaly in the law, which I hope the Minister will tackle. Why can the offence of living on immoral earnings receive a penalty of as much as seven years in prison, but the maximum penalty for enticing a child into prostitution is two years? What is the logic behind that? I am sure that many hon. Members would agree that the penalty for enticement should be at least the same as—if not greater than—that for living on immoral earnings.
All of us must focus on some very difficult issues on Second Reading and in Committee. The Bill is not a magic wand. Establishing a register is a very positive step; we must make it as good, comprehensive and sensitive as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and the right hon. and learned Member for Putney put their fingers on it when they said that we must have a fully co-ordinated approach. From asking questions of a range of Ministers, I have formed


the overall opinion that they are all saying, "It is not really my business, Guv." Such a response is replicated in local authorities, education authorities, social services and the police. There is no co-ordination, either nationally or locally.
I call on the House to provide the impetus to tackle the issue in a positive and purposeful way over the coming years. We have been ignoring the problem for too long. Now that we are fully aware of the extent of the crime—the young lives of hundreds of children are being ruined; their childhoods are being taken away by evil people—we must address it and its causes. I wish the Bill good speed and hope that it tackles the broader issues as well as the specific issues concerning the register.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The Bill and the debate sharply illustrate the extreme seriousness with which we all view the offences to which the Bill refers. The debate reflects our awareness of the public's strong feelings of justifiable outrage when such offences are committed against innocent children, young people and even very elderly people.
I had personal experience of such public reaction when a little girl, Sophie Hook, to whom my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) has already referred, was snatched from a garden tent at night while on holiday with relatives in Llandudno in my constituency and brutally murdered by a local paedophile, Howard Hughes, who had been known to the police for some years. Although there was a history of complaints about this man's behaviour, the only previous conviction secured against him was for common assault on a boy in the early 1980s. Had the Bill been in force at that time, it is doubtful whether Hughes would have had to give notification under it. That fact—and that case—have rather dominated my view of the Bill. I know that it is very dangerous to draw general principles from particular cases, so I shall put forward suggestions.
I am told that paedophiles tend to amass a great deal of material relating to their obsession. Hughes was no exception. Perhaps we should try to create an offence of possessing such material in certain well-defined circumstances, which would lead to notification under the Bill. I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister say that he intends to table an amendment in Committee to deal with the importation of paedophile material, but I doubt whether, with the best will in the world, that would cover the fact of possession if imported, and possibly non-imported, material is found in an individual's possession.

Mr. Maclean: I think that I can help my right hon. Friend. We have already included a provision that requires those who have been convicted of possessing indecent photographs of children, or of taking, showing or possessing such photographs with a view to distributing them, to register. The Bill does not cover only importation. We are now plugging that loophole.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am very glad to have my right hon. Friend's assurance. I do not want to discourage him in any way, but he will be aware that the sort of material

that appears to excite the imaginations of paedophiles is very extensive, and even extends to court records. I therefore hope that he will refine his requirements in the amendment.
It concerns me that the Bill deals only with convicted offenders. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney was concerned about that too. We know that, although there is a history of complaints about many paedophiles, the complaints have not been pursued due to the reluctance of parents and children to become involved in court proceedings—all of which is perfectly understandable. Surely there should be some investigative service, possibly under the national health service or social services, which considers complaints about which the police and other organisations are aware but can do little about.
We know that, once established as a personality trait, paedophilia tends to persist and may—obviously—cause concern to the paedophile's relatives and friends. They might be glad to unburden themselves in response to sympathetic inquiries. In the event of a positive outcome to such an inquiry, therefore, at least the authorities and everyone else would be aware of the tendencies inherent in an individual.

Mrs. Golding: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the full implementation of Judge Pigot's report would be helpful in such cases?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I dare say that it would. I am basing my remarks on my experience of a particular case in my constituency, but I am sure that the matter is covered in the Pigot report. Nevertheless, and as I am sure the hon. Lady will understand, it is a difficult area.
The issue on which we are all being pressed is the use that the police will make of the information resulting from notification. I am bound to say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that I had expected to see that spelt out in the Bill and I am disappointed that it is not. However, there is no doubt that the police will find the information helpful, especially in implementing the various child protection strategies to which schools, the probation service and other organisations contribute.
In respect of the dissemination of the information, we are all aware that antipathetic feelings towards paedophiles run high. It is difficult to believe that the diffusion of knowledge about their location—as practised by the police in Washington state, for example—would not result in unhelpful public houndings of convicted paedophiles from one locality to another, thus discouraging notification to the point where the purpose was defeated. Dissemination of knowledge of convicted paedophiles' whereabouts and physical appearance through distribution of photographs and so on should, therefore, be confined to those with a need to know—for example, head teachers of schools where persons with an unhealthy and obsessive interest in children are pestering pupils, or child care employers who are suspicious of persons whom they are thinking of engaging.

Mr. Brazier: As one who has recently visited Washington state and spoken to the Seattle district attorney—I have even been out on patrol with the Seattle police—may I put it to my right hon. Friend that one merit that Washington state possesses, unlike its near namesake,


Washington DC, is a rapidly falling crime rate? I believe that Washington state has had the second or third largest fall in crime in America. Perhaps there is something to be said for looking at the methods used there.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I certainly agree that we should look at those methods, which were shown on the television programme to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney referred. My personal opinion, however, is that it would not be wise in this country to disseminate photographs to neighbours of paedophiles as was done in Washington state. I have a feeling that the result would be more crimes, not fewer.
I am aware of the controversial and sensitive nature of the proposals in the Bill. Notification must not become an additional punishment; it must be a preventive measure. The police must be careful when using the information that they gain as a result of the Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that some guidelines for the police might be welcome.
The question has been asked: why pick on sexual offenders, rather than some other group of criminals who might be more likely to reoffend? The answer lies in the particular horror and revulsion felt by the public when the defenceless are attacked and in the extreme terror that sexual offenders can strike in communities.
We all believe that the police are well informed about convicted offenders in our midst, but that is not invariably the case. I am frequently surprised by their lack of knowledge about offenders who find their way back into the community from prison or psychiatric hospitals. That is an area of police information that should be subjected to closer examination and scrutiny. I am especially concerned about the actions of some of our mental health tribunals, which give little warning, and consult very little with the police before releasing individuals into the community.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I welcome the Government's action in introducing this important Bill. It would have been a mistake to have left it as a private Member's Bill; the public's concern is massive and the Government were right to make it a Government Bill. In some respects, however, they have been timid—not a word that I often associate with the Minister—and I am glad to hear that some amendments are proposed, such as an increase in the penalty for non-notification. I urge the Government to go further; the Bill represents only half a loaf and we should attempt to explore in Committee whether we can make it more effective.
The public need to know that there is an overall register containing all the information that is needed. The danger is that the Bill will lead only to one more list being prepared—one that will not be the comprehensive list that is needed. From the Minister's recent answer to me, I gather that we already have six national lists: the police national computer list, the national identification service list, the National Criminal Intelligence Service list, Scotland Yard's national paedophile index list, list 99 of the Department for Education and Employment, and the Department of Health consultancy index list—not to mention the other lists held by local police stations.
Local authorities are in a confusing position because of guidance issued by the Government telling them that they should not keep lists, despite the fact that they have a legal obligation to use the information that they have. Finally, lists are also held by voluntary bodies such as the Scout Association and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.
What is the register to be? Is it to be only the seventh list, or is to be the overall list that is needed and that the public want? If it fails in that respect, there will be a deep sense of disappointment. I know from my discussions with the Greater Manchester Police Federation that its members were disappointed to learn that the list would not be fully retrospective: to be useful to the police, it must be retrospective. Even if the register established under the Bill cannot be retrospective, as the Minister explained, there must be an overall list containing all the information available, including details of suspects. All the evidence shows that, if the list is to be effective, there must be close co-operation between all those who are concerned with the problem.
The whole question of who should and should not be on the list has already been discussed. The Childrens Charities Consortium made an important point when it said that the list should not include those cases where there had been victimless, adult consensual acts, because that would add unnecessary names to the list.
I hope that the requirements for Scotland will be fully in line with those for the rest of the country. We need global information, but without common information covering Great Britain, it will be difficult to get common information covering the rest of the world. I am appalled to hear that individuals who are known to have been convicted for serious sexual offences abroad will not be on the register here. I agree with the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) that it is absurd that such offenders should be omitted.
People who are known to have been convicted of one of these serious offences and are known to the police should be notified that they must inform the police of changes of address. In that way, we can make the register more useful more quickly than if we leave matters as they are; otherwise, it will be decades before sensible action can be taken.
Suspects must be included on the list where the information on them is sufficiently serious. The National Association for the Development of Work with Sex Offenders says:
There is an urgent need to address the issue of known sex offenders who are not convicted. There should be clear guidance about the management of information in such cases.
According to the Childrens Charities Consortium,
the majority of children are abused by unconvicted offenders, and in the minority of cases where prosecution follows the disclosure of abuse, the rate of conviction remains disturbingly low.
Research shows that, on average, before a child sex abuser is caught, he or she will have attempted or committed more than 200 offences.
How can we leave strong evidence of abuse off the register? If a local authority requires a man to move out of a house because he has been found to be abusing the children, and if he complies with that requirement, there may not be a conviction but surely his name should be on the register with those of people who have been convicted; we know that in many cases it is difficult to secure a successful conviction.
In 1994, the latest year for which we have figures, there were 54,000 protection referrals for child sex abuse, which led to fewer than 500 convictions: fewer than one in 100 were convicted. The information that is available to social services must be included on an overall register if the register is to have value.
It is ridiculous that the names of children at risk of sexual abuse are placed on a register but the names of people who have committed the crime are not. It is the only crime where the victim's name is placed on the register but the perpetrator's name is not. I ask the Government to give more thought to creating an overall list that includes such information. I understand that the National Criminal Intelligence Service already maintains a database of about 4,500 suspected paedophiles, so the Government already keep some of this information. We all expect the Government to try to maintain more of it.
I said earlier that the courts established in R. v. Devon County Council ex parte L that social services have a duty to maintain surveillance of suspected child abusers, even if they are unconvicted. There is, therefore, a clear duty on the Government to maintain the best possible information systems and to assemble an overall list that will pull all that information together.
As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said, we need clear guidance on who should have access to the information in the register. There is nothing explicit in the Bill about access to the register. Matthew Parris said on Friday that the principle of public notification is unsound. I urge caution in the way in which the information is used. I would be satisfied to leave it to a chief constable to decide how it should be used and to notify people when he thinks it necessary, but the Bill should say clearly how that guidance should be issued.
I am pleased that the Government accept the need for a higher penalty. One month was obviously inadequate and would have led to paedophiles risking discovery rather than coming forward, as they should. I hope that offences abroad will be counted as offences for the purposes of the Bill. If not, there will be a temptation for paedophiles to commit their offences abroad.
The right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) said that he thought it was impossible to treat offenders, but I draw his attention and that of other hon. Members to the very good work done by the Faithfull Foundation at Wolvercote. Its residential treatment centre has achieved high success rates but, sadly, it faces closure because the Department of Health, which owns the property, apparently intends to sell it shortly. In the light of that success, I urge the Government to ensure that there is at least one residential treatment centre in every region. It is appalling that the Government have no plans to secure the future of the Faithfull Foundation treatment centre or to establish treatment centres elsewhere.
I look forward to an active Committee stage, during which amendments may be introduced to strengthen the Bill and ensure that it becomes the type of Bill that the public want. If the names and addresses of previous offenders are known to the police at present, surely it is no problem for the police to notify them that they must inform the police of any future move. That would not impose a great burden on the police, and it would help to assemble the necessary information.
It is perfectly possible to strengthen the Bill's ability to deal with people with previous convictions and where there is strong evidence of abuse although there may not have been a conviction.
I look forward to the Committee stage and hope that the Government will give full attention to the need to develop treatment centres and assessment centres.

Mr. Maclean: I have heard the main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's plea that we should impose a requirement on people who do not know that they have been convicted, because they have not been convicted, to register with the police and that they should be liable to six months' imprisonment if they do not do so. How would he justify to the House, to the country and to his new party a sentence of six months on people who failed to register when they did not know that they had to do so because they had never been charged with or convicted of any offence?

Mr. Thurnham: If the Minister had been listening, he would have heard me say that, when the person's name and address is already known it will be possible to notify him of the need to inform the police of any move that he might make, and if there is sufficient evidence against him the conviction could be secured on the basis of existing evidence. It is perfectly possible to bring a prosecution if it is thought that that would be in the public interest.
I agree with the thrust of some of the remarks made by the right hon. and learned Member for Putney that, in effect, an indeterminate sentence is needed. Why release a person if it is known that he poses a risk to the public? If he is known to pose a risk to the public, there should be a full assessment before sentence is passed. There should be treatment during the period of sentence and no release without an assessment that the risk to the public was at a minimum.
At present, people can be released when they are known to pose a risk to the public and it is then necessary to wait for them to reoffend before they are reconvicted. I urge the Government to consider more closely the need for a full assessment before sentence is passed, so that indeterminate sentences can be imposed on people who continue to pose a risk to the public. The Government should propose much stronger measures.

Mr. Michael Alison: I join the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and many other hon. Members in applauding the introduction of the Bill, especially part II, and I wish to say a word of congratulation to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has involved himself in this subject exhaustively over a long period.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State reminds me of one of those great capital ships that one used to see in documentary films about naval encounters, speeding towards the war. There was a period when, some of us thought, the great guns that my right hon. Friend carried tended to face in the wrong direction; but, slowly and deliberately, those massive guns have undergone a switch in trajectory and they have swung right round to focus their powerful charges on this appalling and horrible type of criminal.
Not only has my right hon. Friend involved himself deeply in this subject, but I think he will agree that he has received substantial help from outside pressure groups such as the Coalition on Child Prostitution and Tourism, and his proposal gets to grips with the problem. I warmly congratulate him on that and thank him for the part that he has played.
I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would give me some further advice when he replies, or on another occasion, or even in Committee. The Coalition on Child Prostitution and Tourism has made a point relating to the exclusion proposed in clause 2(3)(d), which applies to someone who
is outside the United Kingdom"—
while the time requirement of up to 14 days is ticking away. Can the fact that such a person is outside the United Kingdom at the relevant time provide him with an indefinite escape from registration? He might, for instance, decide to stay outside the UK for one of the periods stipulated on page 2 of the Bill—five years. That might enable him never to have to register, because the time for which he has to register would expire before he returned to the United Kingdom. I should be glad of the Minister's guidance on that technical point.
Another aspect of the Bill slightly worries me, and it was vividly put in interventions by the hon. Members for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). My slight misgiving about the Bill is paradoxical. The aim of the Bill is to protect vulnerable children and juveniles in overseas countries and territories. Certainly, part II will indirectly benefit children in this country, but its essential purpose is to help to safeguard poor, vulnerable children or juveniles in overseas countries. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to reassure the House that this part of the Bill will not inculcate a tendency or preference on the part of paedophiles for going overseas to commit their crimes.
A paedophile might go overseas because of the difference between what constitutes a culpable offence in Britain and such an offence in another country. My fear is that paedophiles might concentrate their activities on, say, girls over the age of 14 in some Asian countries; at that age they become marriageable and are allowed, without committing an offence, sexual intercourse. Thus a group of girls who may be protected under our framework of law are not necessarily so protected in other countries: they are therefore more vulnerable.
Does the Minister share my anxiety, furthermore, about the possibility—this is a double jeopardy—that those guilty of offences against girls outside the narrow age range of 14 to 16, and susceptible to charges under the Bill, might go abroad to commit their crimes, and then hand themselves over to the local jurisdiction if they have the faintest suspicion that their activities have been discovered by, for instance, investigators from a non-government organisation? They might then plea bargain, asking to be prosecuted for the alleged offence, and in exchange for pleading guilty they would demand a sentence of deportation. Many less developed countries try to deport overseas visitors caught in criminal activities as rapidly as possible, because the last thing they want is the image that attaches to countries that prosecute tourists. For them, deportation is a quick and easy way out.
If such a plea of guilty has been entered and deportation has ensued, does that mean that the case cannot be tried back in the United Kingdom?
Is my right hon. Friend certain that we are not introducing any measure that will promote such activities against children in overseas countries—such locations being, from the point of view of those who may be apprehended, the lesser of two evils? I wish to reinforce the point argued by the hon. Members for Bolton, North-East, for Swansea, East and for Mossley Hill. Serious consideration must be given to registration when an offence has been tried abroad and knowledge of that event has reached us.
Otherwise I warmly endorse everything positive that has been said about this Bill, and I congratulate Ministers on the action that they have taken.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Anyone who saw Sue Lloyd-Roberts' excellent film on child prostitution in Sri Lanka, shown about 10 days ago, will have no hesitation in arguing that people convicted of sexual offences in other countries ought to be on the register in this country too. Anyone who saw the film will have seen a Swiss millionaire who has been accused of abusing about 2,500 young people in Sri Lanka and who is currently being tried in that country. It is terrifying to think that he might come to live here without anyone knowing that he had been convicted of sexual abuse in another country. His and many other examples argue strongly in favour of including such people on our register as well, in case they plan to come and live here.
We tend to speak of our own direct experiences. In my constituency a few months ago, a man was convicted of sexually abusing 18 young children—this in one small village. The man had moved to Cynon Valley from Liverpool, where he had been convicted of sexually abusing under-aged children. He had served his sentence and then moved, presumably because he knew that he would be anonymous in Cynon Valley. Like many paedophiles, he was very clever. He was married with two children. He kept horses, and had a bouncy castle in his back garden. He had a great many things that attracted young children to his house. Indeed, he offered to baby-sit, so parents in the area thought he was a nice man—he seemed kind to children. He was also a taxi driver.
It was almost by chance that the man was eventually caught out. The parents of the children concerned are extremely upset and angry because they believe that he has been given a relatively short prison sentence. I do not want this evening to discuss the length of prison sentences. Suffice it to say that if parents in my area had been aware of the man's conviction of serious sexual offences elsewhere, they would have been on their guard and would have protected their children.
That is why I believe that the register must be retrospective if it is to have any worth. I know that several right hon. and hon. Members feel the same. Many of these people continue to pose a serious risk to the public, and will do so for many years to come. Some repeat sex offenders are known to have been given short probation and community service orders or short custodial sentences even though they have previously served longer sentences. I therefore ask the Minister to think again. There are all too many examples to show that, had there been a retrospective register of this kind in the past, many people would have been enabled to protect vulnerable children.
There is another case in my constituency where several local business men have been accused of sexual offences against under-age children. That is proceeding, so I shall say nothing about it, except that as we roll over the stones, the ghastly picture of what is happening in our society emerges.
When I heard the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts)—the former Minister at the Welsh Office—speaking about his concerns, I wondered why the Welsh Office had not sent inspectors to examine a problem that had been evident in north Wales for many years and about which plenty of evidence had been given to the Welsh Office. Where was that inspectorate?
What happens when the state is responsible for the protection of young children? It must be the most awful thing of all, when children are taken away from homes where they have been physically or sexually abused, put in the care of the state and find that things are worse than they were at home, and when the state allows abuse to go on against those children. As we know, a tribunal is meeting in north Wales. Some of my constituents are involved in it and will give evidence there, and some will choose not to do so, because they find the experience so painful.
For many years children who were in the protection of the state were continually sexually abused by those who were supposed to care for them. Unless the register is retrospective, it will not identify people who have previous convictions and who are still in positions of responsibility, working with children.
Someone who is in charge of an organisation that trains young people telephoned me in July and said that he was concerned that when he was taking on new staff and asked the police for information because he had doubts about certain members of his staff, the information was withheld from him. It is essential that such information is given to those who are responsible for employing staff who will come into contact with young people.
Do the Government intend to give direction—not just guidelines—to chief constables on the policing of known sex offenders, and the disclosure of information to child welfare protection agencies, housing agencies, prospective employers and the general public? Without such direction, it is arguable whether police forces will be any more effective than they are at present in preventing further offending, bearing in mind the fact that they already have at their disposal information through the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and existing police intelligence reporting. Indeed, police forces nationally, as the Minister well knows, complain that limited resources impede their ability to reduce crime. The added task of collating information, with no direction on its usage, becomes increasingly questionable.
With such limited sanctions as fines not exceeding scale 3 and/or imprisonment, with the maximum term not exceeding one month, the Bill should not be viewed as a deterrent to serial sex offenders who we know are skilled in concealing their identity and whereabouts. At best it may serve as a further deterrent to lesser-risk convicted offenders—those who have committed opportune offences where the process of detection and conviction has already reduced the likelihood of recidivism. The Bill would give the police considerable power over lesser-risk

sex offenders, but with regard to serial paedophiles, part I is unlikely to deter their activities and therefore to protect children or other vulnerable sections of the public.
The Bill does nothing to alter the rate of prosecution for those alleged to have committed sex offences. For example, the number of prosecutions resulting from a major police inquiry into child abuse in north Wales was minimal, considering the number of complaints made. If Parliament wants to address more effectively the prevention of sex offending, it should consider measures intended to distinguish between different types of offenders, enforcing treatment where appropriate, and measures to protect the public when that is deemed necessary.
The Bill will not help to deal with the problem that only a small number of sex offenders are caught, and that most are free and will not be affected by the Bill. We are only beginning to uncover the problem in the United Kingdom. The young people whom I interviewed, who are now in their thirties, were sexually abused while in state care when they were aged 14. Such abuse at that age has destroyed their lives. I have five of those young people in my constituency. All have served prison sentences.
It is extremely moving to hear those young people talking about their experiences. I am surprised that they can talk about them at all, but they find it easier to talk to women. When they speak about their experiences, they say the same thing over and over again: they are not after compensation. I must refute recent claims that those who now give witness to what happened to them when they were teenagers are after compensation. The majority want to know why it was done to them, why it took so long for the abuse to be uncovered and why no one ever said to them, "I'm sorry."

Mr. Julian Brazier: That was a moving speech from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). I strongly welcome the Bill. I support the measures in part II which allow the prosecution in the United Kingdom of British citizens who go abroad to abuse small children in foreign countries.
I was present for the first Adjournment debate in the small hours of the night four years ago, when we discussed the matter, and I was privileged to serve on the private Member's Bill last year and to support pleas from my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and others for a more far-reaching measure to be introduced. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who took so much trouble to listen to our arguments then, has introduced such a measure in part II of the Bill.
None the less, as time is short and many hon. Members want to speak, I shall focus on part I. Earlier speakers have dealt with individual details of the Bill. Instead, I shall focus on the only strong argument that has been put forward against the Bill—the argument advanced in an article by Matthew Parris, which has been alluded to several times. It is important that the article is answered strongly, for two reasons: first, because of Norman Tebbit's famous dictum that the worst legislation that goes through Parliament is usually the legislation that everyone in the House agrees with and which is therefore not properly scrutinised—not the case with this Bill, but


there is some truth in the observation—and secondly, because if the argument is not properly answered in this place, we may have difficulties in another place, and as we are so close to an election, the Bill is particularly vulnerable.
Mr. Parris claimed that "the central principle" of the Bill is
that a great swathe of offenders who have served their sentences and returned—disgraced at the workplace, disgraced with landlords, disgraced among their families and their friends, and almost certainly unemployed—to try to begin their lives again, should now be bound to the 20th-century equivalent of the leper's bell. This"—
he says—
is primitive nonsense. Will nobody say so?
His views may well by echoed by the legal establishment—for example, let us look at the way in which it has resisted many of Mr. Pigot's recommendations. Curiously, Mr. Parris outlines the skeleton of the opposing argument in a subsequent paragraph. He says:
Apologists for the Home Secretary will object that although sex offenders are victims, they create victims of their own.
Most people would not accept that sex offenders are victims, although they certainly create victims. He continues:
Are these not our first concern? There is a clear answer to this. If we judge a person so dangerous that his neighbours must be warned about him, he should not be allowed back into the community.
Many people would say, "Amen to that." The danger to which Mr. Parris refers can be measured in two ways: the nature of the danger and its numerical extent.
First, many hon. Members have pointed to the horrendous primary damage caused by the sexual abuse of children, but two secondary forms of damage have scarcely been mentioned. The first is the fact that the increased number of AIDS cases in this country heightens the risk of children catching serious sexually transmitted diseases that may affect their health for the rest of their lives. In AIDS cases, they are likely to result in death.
The second form of secondary abuse to which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) referred—I pay tribute to her tireless pursuit of this cause—is the abuse that continues in the criminal justice system after the primary offence. In seven or eight speeches and ten-minute Bills in this place, I have referred to cases of untrained or unvigilant judges allowing lawyers to abuse grossly their powers in court. I have described the way in which children are sometimes treated in court. A whole range of organisations point to the secondary abuse of children in court that may continue for a year or a year and a half after the original offence.
Children are deliberately tormented again and again by being forced to wait hours—sometimes days—before they take the witness stand. Children as young as 11 or 12 are sneered at and often face allegations that they encouraged their attackers. That kind of treatment, which goes far beyond the bounds of normal cross-examination, can make the original abuse much worse. That is why, even when there is an overwhelming case against a sex offender, the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and social services feel compelled—even before the parents intervene—to abandon proceedings.
That brings me to the second danger: the numerical incidence of sex offences. According to the overwhelming body of academic evidence, only rarely does a convicted

paedophile cease offending. The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) called for more treatment for sex offenders. The problem is that I have seen no academic work—I have examined a number of studies—that shows that a course of treatment for paedophiles has had anything more than the most modest success rate. The danger of re-offending is numerically very high.

Mr. Thurnham: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the work of the Faithful Foundation. It has produced evidence—which others have accepted—of a substantial reduction in sex offences of 60 per cent. or more.

Mr. Brazier: I shall look at that study. The evidence points to a large number of repeat offences, and the danger is both grave and frequent.
My answer to Mr. Parris's article and to those outside Parliament who will continue to claim that the measures in the Bill are too draconian—when many hon. Members believe that they should go much further—is that, when dealing with threats to children, the tiny proportion of offenders who are caught and convicted deserve to be placed on an offenders register. I believe that that register should be made publicly available because parents have a right to know when a convicted paedophile moves into their area. The rights of children—the most vulnerable group in our society—must come before those of convicted criminals.
The most important single service that the House can perform for the victims of sexual offences is to pass the legislation before the election. Therefore, I would not move any troublesome amendments if I were selected to serve on the Committee to consider the Bill. Let us pass the legislation quickly and put the provisions on the statute book.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I shall try to be brief. I am concerned that, although hon. Members appear to be enthusiastic about the legislation, they are not granting it the means of success. Page ii of the explanatory and financial memorandum states:
There will not be any significant financial burden on public expenditure arising from the Bill. Any additional costs will be met from within existing resources.
We are kidding the nation if we try to claim that we will resolve the situation by changing the law without providing extra resources.
As to part II of the Bill, I believe that we should do everything we can to halt sexual tourism. However, I do not believe that we will achieve that simply by changing the law. The only way to stop sexual tourism is by changing the law and ensuring that we secure a series of high profile prosecutions. We must make it absolutely clear that a civilised society will not tolerate such behaviour. That will cost money, so we should not pass legislation unless we are prepared to make the necessary finances available. I add the caveat that we must be aware that the provision may encourage entrapment and blackmail in some cases. I believe that the change is worth while, but that we must find the money to pay for it.
I have many more reservations about part I of the Bill. How useful would a register be? The evidence from the United States suggests that such a register does not work. The Government tell my constituents that they will have


to pay for the register, which will result in fewer resources for the police. There will be fewer policemen on the beat—despite the calls for an increased police presence on our streets at every meeting that I attend in my constituency. Fewer resources will be allocated to pursuing breaches of probation—a low-priority activity for the police—to witness protection and so on. The Minister has said that there will be no extra resources. Therefore, the police must reduce their efforts in other areas and relinquish some of their resources in order to make the register work.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way—although it makes it more difficult for me to say that he is talking nonsense in his latter point. The expensive resources are there: the updates to the police national computer system and to the police national database, which links every police force in the country with digital communications equipment to each other and to the PNC, are the essential resource. The only extra work for the police will involve transmitting the new information to the PNC when a person turns up at a police station and provides his name and address. We have already allocated the resources required.

Mr. Bennett: I am not convinced that the resources are available, but I want to develop the argument. It will take police time to process new information, and people will turn up at police stations only if the police take action against those who do not bother to show. That involves enforcement. A voluntary register will not work: the register will work only if it is enforced, and that will involve extra resources.
What is the purpose of the register? If it is merely to show that Big Brother is watching, there is some point to it. However, there is an implication that it will go further and identify suitable and unsuitable residential areas. What will happen if someone who has been convicted of offences against young children registers, giving an address that is adjacent to a children's playground or day nursery? Do the Government expect the police to do nothing about that? If they do nothing and there is an incident involving that person, there will be a public outcry.
The police will have limited powers and some of the convicted will still be subject to various forms of supervision. It would be possible for the police to say, "That is not a suitable place. What should we do?" If registration merely means providing a name and a place and nothing more, there will be many unhappy people in our communities.
When registration takes place, confidentiality ensues. There is a danger that information will get out, as it were, and that people in local communities will take action. Where will registration take place? My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) took up the issue. I am concerned about people who do not have a regular home. The phrase in the Bill, which is pretty vague, is "regularly visits".
I am conscious of problems in my constituency. Men who are registered and live in bed-sits in my constituency sometimes spend little time at those addresses and most of their time in someone else's household. They often

mislead the person in the other household about their past record. They are often a serious threat to the young children in that other household. Registration will relate to the bed-sit where occasionally such people will be found rather than the address where they are living fairly permanently. The Government must take that on board.
It seems that we are changing the nature of cautions. Originally, someone was given a caution if he committed an offence that was out of character and one that he was unlikely to recommit. If that is the nature of a caution, paedophiles should not be entered on a register. If the nature of a caution is being changed to include people who are likely to recommit an offence, they should not be cautioned. Surely they should be prosecuted. That is unless a deal has been made, stitched up by the police and the individual, on the basis that he would not like the nasty publicity of going to court and, perhaps, pleading guilty. That is an unsatisfactory use of a caution and something that we should examine.
My main message to the House is that it is extremely dangerous to enact legislation unless we are prepared to find money to make it work.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I find myself in the sad position of raising a slightly dissenting voice. I wish to sound a note of caution on the registering of sex offenders. I wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary about the matter in early November 1996. I set out my concerns, which were reinforced in an article in The Times on Friday.
I am concerned with justice and the freedom of the individual. I believe that all men must be capable of redemption. I find it strange, however, to hear myself arguing for more civil liberties. It is not normally a position in which I find myself.
I would never describe myself as a liberal. God forbid. Nor am I a lawyer. I was unhappy about the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Employers and others should be able to ascertain the background of those whom they wish to employ. Indeed, a year or two ago, I was entirely opposed to the reduction of the age of consent for homosexuals. Matthew Parris and I might part company on that one. I believe that the state should not send such a message to young people who may be confused about their sexuality.
I voted for hanging. I would most certainly hang paedophiles who kill children such as Hughes, who was mentioned in the Sophie Hook case. I might vote for corporal punishment. I might vote also for chemical castration, which I believe is practised in some parts of the United States. I do not know a great deal about it. A register for sexual offenders gives me cause for concern, however, on the ground of justice.
There is a revulsion for some sex crimes. A man who exposes himself in a park commits a sex crime, but that is no more revolting than a mugger who beats up an old lady and leaves her for dead, or someone who sells drugs to children. Indeed, children who are on drugs are often tempted to engage in prostitution. Organised drug syndicates and their bullies commit awful crimes. The same can be said of muggers who use knives or other forms of gratuitous violence. I have a revulsion for all violent crime, including sex crimes against children and others.
We are faced with a huge paradox. Over the past 40 years, we have seen much more sexual licence. Sexual activity used to be confined largely to marriage. Sexual activity outside marriage did not meet with approval. The breakdown of the family that we have seen over the past 40 years has led to many more children being brought up in children's homes. We often see child abuse in step-families.
Since the early 1960s, we have encouraged everyone, including children, to consider casual sex as almost an ordinary part of life. At the same time, homosexuality has been given almost official sanction. About two years ago, we came close to reducing the age of consent to 16 years. Labour Members who voted for that reduction in the age of consent should understand that if a man has consensual sex with a boy of 15 or perhaps 17—my right hon. Friend the Minister might correct me—that act will be punishable within the terms of the sexual offenders register, for at least five years. That is my understanding.
The Sun, which passes for a newspaper, titillates its readers with pictures of girls aged 16 wearing school socks. I have never bought The Sun, but I have read it. It contains captions such as, "Look at little Tracy in her school uniform. I would like to teach her a thing or two." What passes for an editorial is called "The Sun Says". In contrived outrage, this so-called editorial states that The Sun would like sex offenders to be hanged, drawn and quartered, and castrated for good measure. Those who have read "Howard's End" will know "only connect", meaning that we will see the connection even if it kills us. Some guilt lies there, and those who shout loudest often wish to shift the guilt on to others.
I should like my right hon. Friend the Minister to discuss reoffending rates. I understand from Home Office figures that sexual offenders have a reoffending rate, or reconviction rate, which is different, of only 16 per cent., compared with a reoffending rate of 17 per cent. for burglary. I do not pretend to be an authority on paedophilia and I have learnt much about the subject during the debate. I am interested, however, when others say, "These people are paedophiles and these people are not." I suspect that the issue is more complicated than that.
My right hon. Friend described paedophiles as clever and manipulative. Surely cleverness and the ability to manipulate are skills that are not linked to paedophiles alone. I am aware, of course, that there are some vile individuals. I would lock them up until they were no longer a threat to anyone. Myra Hindley has been mentioned during the debate. She and her friend, Brady, should have been hanged back in 1966.
I fear that a sexual offenders register may catch pathetic old men who have flashed in the park. One of my constituents is ostracised in his village. As I understand it, he has never been convicted of anything. He says, however, that a former police officer accused him of something unmentionable. Bricks are thrown through my constituent's windows. I do not know whether he is a dirty old man. Similarly, I do not know what he has done in the past. Perhaps he should be treated with caution, but surely the House should be prepared to treat him and others with some pity. As I said, he accuses a former police officer of having spread information about him that has led to hostility.
I remember the death of my hon. Friend Stephen Milligan, who represented Eastleigh. The press reports of the time stated that each Metropolitan police station had a police officer in the pay of newspapers. I do not know whether that is true, but I am aware that the police are not renowned for being entirely secure with their information.
Matthew Parris's article about a "baying mob" at Garrets Green in Birmingham described a man who was forced to flee. Yesterday, I asked a colleague why he would want to know that a convicted sex offender had moved in next to him. He replied, "I would want to get him out." Surely that only moves the problem along.
We must, of course, protect children from vile paedophiles, vile pornography and other evil things. Let us have a central computer, so that we might ensure that convicted paedophiles cannot get jobs with children. Let us keep an eye on them. I fear, however, that the Bill is akin to branding them on the forehead. In effect, the Bill states that prison cannot rehabilitate, that there is no cure and that there is no chance of rehabilitation. I cannot accept that. I was taught that when a person has been punished and the punishment is finished, he has paid his debt to society and the slate should be wiped clean. That is not to say that we should forget everything, but we should keep that in mind. I expect that I shall be pilloried in tomorrow's tabloids—the comics that pass as newspapers: the same ones that have such a prurient interest in our sex lives and the sex lives of everyone else.
My son is seven weeks old. If anyone should harm him, I, like any parent, would want to harm that person. Of course, we must protect children, but there must also be justice, and I do not think that this measure will prevent children from being harmed. The register may lead to mob rule. Under the Bill, for having sex with a girl aged 15 years and 364 days—an offence that may be worth a caution—a boy aged 20 years and one day will be placed on the sex offenders register and will have to report to the police for five years. Will the police differentiate between him and others on the register, or will he be merely an offender? Will not people who find out think that he is an offender and a threat to their children?
Do hon. Members remember Mr. Diggle, the rapist in a kilt? He was the rather pathetic man who committed rape after a highland ball in London. As a rapist, he will go on the sexual offenders register. That is fine, but do we really think that he will reoffend? The case caused hoots of laughter: it was a sad, pathetic case, particularly for the woman. He will be on the sexual offenders register for an indefinite period, and I am not sure that that is just.
I doubt whether the measure will serve justice well. Criminals who have finished their sentence also have rights. Above all else, we should protect the innocent, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider very carefully how the measure will work in practice, and whether its effects will be just.

Mr. John Hutton: Like other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I intend to be brief. Unlike the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), I do not follow his line of argument. My hon. Friends and I broadly welcome the Bill, and we welcome the Government's change of heart about introducing it in Government time.
All of us have read about the hideous and appalling crimes that have recently been committed against children. I was horrified by two cases in particular—as


were my constituents and everyone in the country. The appalling murder of Sophie Hook and the hideous crime committed against Daniel Handley have increased public concern about the activities of paedophiles. The whole country is looking to the House to find ways to increase the protection offered to the public against the criminal activities of sex offenders, and to enable the police to keep a better eye on the movement of such people.
If the Bill is to be effective, it must be practical. It is reasonable for the Bill to define those who are to be covered by the notification requirements. I think that the hon. Member for Blaby was wrong: the rapist to whom he referred will not be covered by the notification requirements. Extending the retrospective application of the Bill could cause significant practical problems for the police, by imposing difficult burdens on them. I do not think that loading the police with additional administrative burdens will help them to offer greater protection to the public.
In all these cases, a reasonable line must be drawn between the type of offences that will be on the register and the people who will be covered by the notification requirement. In the context of the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), I think that the lines drawn by the Bill are, in broad terms, about right.
As many hon. Members have said, we must reconcile the requirement to protect our important civil liberties with the need to provide greater protection to the public and to help the police to pursue sex offenders. I accept that it is difficult to draw that line. The Government are right to include in the terms of the Bill persons who have been cautioned for committing certain sexual offences. That is the right balance to strike. If there is a trade-off to be made between protecting the public, helping the police and protecting civil liberties, I am in doubt about where that line should be drawn. It should always be drawn in favour of protecting the innocent, protecting children and helping the police.
Some of these people have committed foul and hideous crimes against innocent children, such as Sophie Hook, whose family come from my constituency, and Daniel Handley. If it is a choice between protecting the innocent—indeed, the lives of those children—and protecting civil liberties, in my book there is no difficulty about where that line should be drawn.
I welcome the Government's inclusion of cautions in the Bill. We must operate along the lines of a precautionary principle. If someone is evidencing behaviour that gives rise to serious concern that he may offend against innocent children and others, he should be on the register: we should know where such people are, and the police should know about their movements.
Many hon. Members have spoken about the need for wider access to the register. The right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) drew the House's attention to the need for the Bill to extend access, and for members of the public to be notified of the whereabouts of paedophiles. This is a difficult area, and we must exercise caution and common sense about where we draw the line.
I have four young children, and many of my constituents have young families. A reasonable question that we could all ask ourselves is: would we want to know

that we were living next door or in close proximity to a person who had been convicted of a serious sex offence against a child? If we were honest with ourselves, our answer would be, "Yes, of course we would want to know that."
I am not saying that the Bill is defective because it does not extend the principle of public access—we shall return to that issue in Committee. Have the Government considered widening public access not to every offence included in schedule 1, but to certain offences in that schedule? We must be careful, but in the case of sex offenders, particularly those who have committed sex offences against children, we should seriously examine our normal concerns about protecting civil liberties.
I have a number of specific concerns about the Bill, to which I want to draw the House's attention. Clause 2(2) is an example of poor parliamentary drafting. We appreciate that parliamentary drafting is not a precise art: some problems emerge only through litigation in the courts; some problems hit us right between the eyes when we look at the Bill. This is an example of an obvious problem. I know that this is a Committee point, but it is not clear whether the present drafting of the Bill properly covers the case of a known sex offender who changes his or her address during the period after conviction.
The Bill provides that the person is under a duty to notify the police if there is any change that would falsify the original notification details. What a convoluted provision. What a load of gobbledegook. Why does not the Bill simply provide that a person is required to notify the police if he changes his address? The Bill does not do that: it imposes a duty to notify the police if a subsequent event occurs that may falsify the original entry in the register. I do not understand why the Government have chosen that wording. That is an obvious problem. Some people may argue that they are not required to notify the police, even if they change their address. That would strike at the purpose of the Bill, which is to keep offenders under proper observation.
The other obvious problem with the Bill is that it refers to the list of offences in schedule 1. Hon. Members have referred to the fact that, as the Bill stands, there is no obligation on a person who comes to live in this country and has committed a sex crime against people abroad to notify the police of his address and details. That is an obvious mistake.
A more obvious mistake is that the schedule does not include persons who, in this country, have been convicted of a crime under the Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Act 1996. I know that there are problems about how we would define offences in foreign jurisdictions, and make them broadly compatible with the list of offences in schedule 1, but we are talking about offences that a person would commit under that law, which would be dealt with in an English court. Why are they not included in the list? We are discussing people in this country who have conspired with others to commit sex crimes against children abroad. They are paedophiles, however we define that word: they have committed serious sex crimes against children.
I trust that the Bill will do two things. I believe that it will help the police to monitor sex offenders; I also believe that it will reassure the public that the police are taking such offences seriously, and are developing new information systems to ensure that we know where the


offenders are. It is a modest Bill, and I do not think that it will stop the commission of offences overnight, but I think that it takes us in broadly the right direction. It should be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I am sure that it will be broadly welcomed by our constituents as well.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Along with everyone else who has spoken, I welcome the Bill as a substantial step forward in protecting children from the vilest of offenders, who prey on their innocence and ruin their lives.
I am particularly grateful because, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and I went to see Ministers some two or three years ago, I can only say that we encountered polite interest but were given little hope of immediate action. It is praiseworthy that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and the Home Office team did listen and allowed themselves to be persuaded to act, and I thank them.
We should also compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), whose Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Act 1996 started the track followed by this Bill by giving our courts jurisdiction over the organisers of sexual tourism abroad. The Bill constitutes the next stage of that Act, which was inherently flawed. Clearly, many cases will be brought under this rather than the earlier legislation.
I welcome the Opposition's support for the Bill, but I think it a little churlish of them to criticise the Government for not leaping on to the Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson). We keep talking about speedy Bills that are bad law, and it was plainly sensible for the Government to consult, take soundings and obtain research before producing their White Paper and, subsequently, the Bill. Consensus naturally prevailed, and has produced a good result.
Our revulsion has been generated by the astonishing number of offences against children. In the United Kingdom, a newspaper headline in December 1996 read: "15 forces hunt child abusers". According to the accompanying report.
A third of Britain's police forces are now investigating allegations of abuse in children's homes".
These are astonishing revelations to most of us, who lead ordinary, decent lives.
The same applies to offences committed abroad. A recent article in The Criminal Law Review refers to
Paedophile murders of children in Belgium",
which are currently being investigated. It states:
In July 1996 Stephen Mitchell, a British sexual tourist, was convicted and imprisoned for 17 years in the Philippines for paedophile acts. In October 1996 a British tour organiser … was sentenced to … 16 years for promoting child prostitution in the Philippines.
Also in October 1996, a Dutch court jailed a man
for having sex with six young girls, some of whom were aged only 11. A senior diplomat … was convicted and imprisoned for the importation of videos depicting sex acts with children.
The former Australian ambassador to Cambodia is standing trial charged with abusing youths in that country.
We are learning horrifying details from the newspapers, and we feel that we must do something. Such crimes transcend international borders, which is why the Council of Europe, UNICEF—the United Nations Children's Fund—and the European Union, in its third pillar manifestations, have all published, or are publishing, views on what must be done. Because activity of this kind is so often international, we must be prepared to deal with it internationally. NCIS, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, is also compiling details of organised criminal gangs that go in for this sickening activity.
I do not want to confuse parts I and II of the Bill, but, just as there is a case for a sex offenders register for United Kingdom crime, there is obviously a case for including foreign paedophile offenders on our register when that is possible. My right hon. Friend the Minister's response that that is impracticable is roughly the same as the response that we received originally, when we went to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary two or three years ago to ask about the kind of legislation that we are now passing.
The fact is that we must do all we can. Not every paedophile conviction in foreign countries will be notified to us, but a few will, and measures such as this will ensure that that is more likely to happen. We may be able to stop some hideous offenders getting away with it by extending the register to some of those overseas offenders.
The question that so many of us have been considering during today's interesting debate—a question asked by, in particular, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor)—is, what more can we do to deal with the horrors of paedophilia? My right hon. and learned Friend suggested action after danger manifested itself, but before conviction. That is a tempting thought, but the trouble is that, in our legal system, a person can be punished only after he has committed a crime and that crime has been proved by evidence. Suspicion and rumour are not enough; nor are failed prosecutions. We cannot punish people without strict proof, or we shall find ourselves punishing the unpopular as well as the innocent.
Perhaps we should not despair. I am not sure that the gap is all that great between all the provisions that are now being made available and those that we would in our hearts like to see. Some deviants do seek help and submit to treatment; others are caught, tried, convicted and sentenced, and are then treated in one way or another. Under the Crime (Sentences) Bill, they can be subjected to more supervision—in some circumstances, for up to a lifetime.
Under the same Bill, even those who commit trivial offences, and are therefore cautioned, will appear on the register. Those who are convicted a second time may, thanks to the Government's courageous action—which, even now, is probably being attacked in the other place—be removed from circulation for life, or for as long as it is considered a matter of public safety for them to remain in custody.
Those who have been convicted once will now be on the register, and some of those who have not yet attacked—stalkers—can perhaps be brought within the ambit of the Protection from Harassment Bill, if a child is the target. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will examine the possibility of extending the register to such offences. Can anything be done about those who are merely suspected? I do not think that we would be realistic if we


thought that the local police did not put such people on an unofficial list, and watch them very closely. They watch them as potential offenders waiting to be caught and they ensure that as much attention as local resources will allow is directed there.
I have professional experience of one such case. A very serious alleged child offender, who was charged with murdering children, was watched and watched and watched and finally caught and convicted. He is now serving a long sentence, so the fact that the names do not appear on the official register does not mean that the local police will not watch anyone against whom suspicion is strong.
There are other suggestions for strengthening the law. In some states in America, communities are informed when paedophiles move into the district. Should that happen here? My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney asked why ordinary people did not have the right to know what police officers know. The problem is vigilantism: people seeking to take the law into their own hands and getting it wrong. Most of us in the House, however angry we are, might hesitate to encourage that behaviour because the evil could be even greater than that of a possible paedophile who is at large and is being watched.
It has been suggested that there should be a criminal offence for convicted sex offenders to seek jobs that give them access to children. What has happened to that proposal? Has it been discarded? Has it been discussed with the police and other involved parties? What conclusions have my right hon. Friends come to? It would be better to have that weapon in the armoury than one that incites vigilantism.
I conclude, as many have concluded, with a hearty welcome for the Bill and with a desire to find out what more can be done in Committee or elsewhere. However, may I end on this slightly different note? Several hon. Gentlemen have said that paedophilia is not susceptible to cure. I doubt that. In Britain, there is evidence, which is growing, that some paedophilia can be cured.
The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) said that a scheme in an area that he knows has been successful, and I have met some of the organisers. We must be prepared to spend some resources on treatment in prison and some on treatment after prison. Treatment must also be a part of our weaponry against this most detestable of all offences, towards the control of which the Bill takes a substantial step.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I follow the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) in saying, with a lawyer's hat on, that there are problems in relation to the dissemination of the names on the register, access to it and the information that it holds, but I will briefly comment on part I.
I hope that the Government will, on consideration, ensure that there is some means of including the list of offenders who have been prosecuted abroad. That is clearly a loophole, and inclusion would be a deterrent. Relatively few cases would be brought to the Government's attention by our embassies and by the network of non-governmental organisations. I hope that

all addresses where offenders habitually reside will be on that register. I would like the Government to consider carefully access to our register by some outside organisations if, for example, they suspect an individual who operates in his own country. I hope that people who seek to leave the United Kingdom to avoid registration will nevertheless be obliged to register with British embassies overseas and that that will be considered.
I welcome part II, for the same reasons given by the hon. and learned Member for Burton. Clearly, one must have a consistent and co-ordinated attack on exploitation of children across the board. There must be co-operation among police authorities and an attack on corruption. We must be prepared to assist NGOs in this sector, particularly the consortium of NGOs working on behalf of street children in developing countries.
I was therefore particularly unhappy with the Government's response on 14 January to my parliamentary question. They claimed that their promise on 27 February 1995 in the Official Report, at column 689, was "an unfortunate error." They admitted that, since February 1995, they had provided only £46,000 to the consortium. I hope that they will reconsider that and provide more adequate means for the NGOs, which are doing a magnificent job overseas.

Ms Ann Coffey: The contributions of hon. Members on both sides of the House demonstrate their loathing and disgust for people who abuse children. The Bill will provide extra protection for children, but, for it to achieve its objectives, underpinning the legislation, there must be a comprehensive package to improve the reporting, detection and conviction of people who sexually abuse children. A widespread criticism of Government machinery is the failure to deliver a coherent and consistent policy across the various Departments. The agencies that are responsible for the protection of children—local authorities, the police, probation and health departments, which have achieved much at local level—must be supported by a coherent policy nationally.
I would be interested to hear from the Minister what discussion he has had with his colleagues with responsibility for health and education. Both Departments keep lists. The Department for Education and Employment maintains a list of people who are barred from employment by a local education authority, school or further education establishment, as a teacher or in any other capacity that involves contact with children or young people up to the age of 18. The Secretary of State for the Home Department may also bar people on the ground of misconduct or on medical grounds. Anyone convicted after October 1995 of a sexual offence against a child under 16 years is barred automatically. That is list 99. Employers must check that list.
The Department of Health operates on an advisory basis a consultancy service that applies to England and Wales, whereby local authorities and private and voluntary agencies can check—it is not mandatory—the suitability of people they wish to employ in a child care post. On 26 July 1995, in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), pointing out the differences between list 99 and the Department of Health consultancy service, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment said that the latter was to alert


employers to people whose applications they should consider with particular care, but that it was up to the prospective employer to decide whether the person was suitable for appointment in each case.
The difference is clear. If someone commits an offence against a child under the age of 16, he can never teach as long as he remains on the Department for Employment and Education's list 99. However, that same person is not barred from working with children in children's homes, in a foster home or in other settings. As the Minister said, it is a matter for the prospective employer.
I am sure that no responsible employer would dream of employing such a person, although, in 1995, the social services inspectorate study into small registrable homes discovered criminal convictions among owners of such homes, including a sexual offence. However, that is not the point. The point is that both lists are kept to protect children and should have the same status in terms both of mandatory consultation by employers and of barring employment. If the Secretary of State for Education and Employment can decide that a person is not fit to teach a child, the Department of Health should decide that the person is not fit to have access to children in a caring situation.
Although agencies' access to information on the national register is not being determined by the Bill, it would make sense if the additional information provided by the register in updating addresses and the use of other names were also available to other Departments that keep lists with the aim of protecting children. The determination of paedophiles to gain access to children must be matched by a determination to stop them. I hope that, in Committee, the Minister will be able to clarify how the national register will operate with those other lists.
I am interested in the Minister's discussions with his colleagues in the Department of Health, which has major responsibilities for child protection. Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, local authorities have a duty to investigate allegations of abuse, including sexual abuse. However, there seems to have been a shift in the Department of Health's approach to child protection following the publication of the document entitled "Messages from Research". There is widespread promotion of a lighter touch, and although I can understand that approach in relation to the debate on smacking, I am not sure how it will operate in terms of allegations of sexual abuse, or how a new severity criterion might operate, especially as, alongside that, messages seem to be emanating from the Department of Health about introducing a substantiation criterion.
The document "Messages from Research" notes that some types of allegation are rarely substantiated and suggests that they might be pursued or dealt with under the "in need" rather than the child protection procedures. The most common form of unsubstantiated allegation is sexual abuse. Perpetrators are fully aware of the difficulty of proving that sexual abuse has taken place. Indeed, some paedophiles target lone women with small children for that very reason.
Irrespective of the message from the Department of Health, the Children Act continues to place a duty on local authorities to investigate. To enable a lighter touch, there would need to be changes to that Act. I warn the Government against any attempt, arising from an

ideological war with local authorities, to weaken child protection procedures in the area of sexual abuse. The losers would be children and the gainers would be the abusers.
What discussions have Home Office Ministers had with colleagues in the Department of Health to ensure departmental consistency? There is little point in a Home Office Bill to increase protection for children if Ministers in another Department undermine the procedures that detect that abuse, enable convictions and protect the public by a national register.
We welcome the Bill's principles and its aim of giving children better protection from those who would sexually abuse them, but it can be effective only as one of a number of measures. A commitment to the protection of children cannot be judged solely on fine words. In every aspect of government and in every Department there must be effective legislation and procedures.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I am pleased that we have had an opportunity to discuss the Bill, and I am encouraged by the commitment of hon. Members in all parts of the House to the need for firm and effective action to tackle the scourge of sex offending, particularly that involving children.
Those who spoke in the debate included my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor); my right hon. Friends the Members for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) and for Selby (Mr. Alison); my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Blaby (Mr. Robathan); and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). Opposition Members who spoke included the hon. Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) and for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). The number of hon. Members who spoke shows the great interest that the debate engendered. I am sure that the Bill will continue to engender such interest as it proceeds.
Nothing could be more hateful than sexual offences against the most innocent and vulnerable members of our or any other society, and the Bill contains important provisions for tackling the problem. It responds to widespread public concern. Many will be watching our proceedings with interest, and the lives of many others will benefit from the Bill's provisions. Its enactment will mean that the police will have up-to-date information on the whereabouts of convicted sex offenders and will be able to use it for the investigation and prevention of crime.
The registration requirement will also be a powerful deterrent. Offenders will be aware from the moment they register a change of address that the police know about them and have them in their sights. Those who are tempted not to register should know that that would result in the commission of a further significant criminal offence.
The provisions are tough, and we make no apology for that. They will place some offenders under an obligation to report their movements for the rest of their lives, and that is


right. Any measure that strengthens the power of the police in tackling the scourge of sex offending, particularly against children, is to be applauded.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Kirkhope: I am sorry, but time is too short to give way.
Part II of the Bill is significant. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said in opening the debate, it was my privilege in August to represent the United Kingdom at the Stockholm world congress on the commercial sexual exploitation of children. I was moved by what I heard about such exploitation is some parts of the world and by the determination of everyone present to deal with the problem.
It was clear that we have much to teach others about the investigation of child sexual abuse and the care of child victims in the criminal justice system. I am especially pleased that the Bill will enable us to put in place a key further element in our response to the phenomenon of child sex tourism by extending the jurisdiction of our courts to cover offences that have been committed by Britons abroad.
There is not enough time available to reply to all the hon. Members who spoke. However, I should like to deal with one or two matters. In her winding-up speech, the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) specifically asked about co-ordination and liaison. Not only is there fully developed co-ordination between Departments but there is a good relationship between Departments of State and the non-governmental organisations which were mentioned by some hon. Members. That relationship is important, and since Stockholm I have been keen to encourage it. There will shortly be another meeting with members of the coalition against child prostitution who have worked hard to focus attention on issues relating to international child abuse. By such means we are able to take forward our plans.
I should like to make a slight correction to the comments of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). I mentioned in August the Government's decision to extend the jurisdiction of United Kingdom courts to allow trials in the United Kingdom of those

committing child sexual abuse abroad. I gave a clear undertaking that the Government would make progress as soon as possible when a suitable vehicle was available. I do not want to trade words with the hon. Gentleman about who said what first, but we have always recognised the importance of these matters. I made that clear last summer, long before some of the dates to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
The hon. Members for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) asked whether it was possible to take account of convictions in foreign courts and to use them as a basis for registration here. To place an obligation on the authorities in respect of those who have been convicted abroad would undoubtedly imply recognition of the judgment of a foreign court. It would also assume that the sentences were compatible with the sentences that would have been imposed here and that the standards of evidence and procedure in the foreign courts were compatible with ours.
Such a recognition of foreign criminal judgments, passed anywhere in the world, would create precedent. Therefore, it is difficult for us to move down that path, although it might be regarded by many as worth considering. Perhaps it could be considered further in Committee. As the House knows, there is compatibility in our extradition arrangements and it is based on the concept of dual criminality. That removes the problems that might otherwise occur in the proposals that have been suggested.
There is insufficient time to deal with other matters that have been raised. Most hon. Members who spoke expressed the wish that the legislation should proceed as quickly as possible. I agree, and in Committee we shall be interested to hear their further thoughts on improving the legislation, because it is important that it reaches the statute book as soon as possible.
We have had an interesting and informed debate. We have also heard of the determination of all hon. Members who have spoken in this debate to make a real impact on the terrible problem of sex offending. The Bill is an important contribution to efforts in dealing with the problem, and I hope that it will very quickly reach the statute book.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — Education Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Ordered,
That the Education Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, New Clauses 3 and 4, New Clauses 8 to 11, New Clauses 1 and 2, New Clauses 12 and 13, other New Clauses, amendments relating to Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 12, Schedule 2, Clauses 13 to 24, Schedule 3, Clauses 25 to 28, Schedule 4, Clauses 29 and 30, Schedule 5, Clauses 31 to 36, Schedule 6, Clauses 37 to 42, Schedule 7, Clauses 43 to 57, Schedule 8, Clauses 58 to 71, Schedules 9 and 10, Clause 72, new Schedules.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

New clause 3

RELAXATION OF CONTROLS ON ENLARGEMENT OF PREMISES

After section 259 of the Education Act 1996 there shall be inserted—

"Significant enlargements for the purposes of section 259

259A.—(1) For the purposes of section 259 an enlargement of the premises of a grant-maintained school is a significant enlargement of those premises if (and only if) the effect of the enlargement, taken with all previous enlargements (if any) taking place since the appropriate date, would increase the school's capacity by more than 50 per cent. or 30 pupils (whichever is the greater) as compared with—

(a) its capacity on the appropriate date; or
(b) if at any time after that date its capacity was lower than its capacity on that date, its lowest capacity at any such time.
(2) An enlargement of the premises of a grant-maintained school is accordingly not a significant enlargement of those premises for the purposes of section 259 if its effect, taken with all such previous enlargements (if any), would not be to produce such an increase in the school's capacity.
(3) In subsection (1) "the appropriate date" means whichever is the latest of the following dates—

(a) the date falling four years before the date on which the governing body form the intention to make the enlargement concerned,
(b) the date when the school was established,
(c) where any proposals for a significant enlargement of the premises of the school have been approved by the Secretary of State under—

(i) section 261 below or section 98 of the Education Act 1993, or
(ii) section 37 or 43 above or section 12 or 13 of the Education Act 1980.
the date (or latest date) on which any such proposals were implemented, and
(d) where the local education authority have determined to implement any proposals for a significant enlargement of the premises of the school under section 38 above or section 12(7) of the Education Act 1980, the date (or latest date) on which any such proposals were implemented.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the method for determining a school's capacity for the purposes of this section; and in this section references to a school's capacity are references to its capacity to accommodate pupils.
(5) Nothing in this section applies to a school requiring special measures to be taken.".'.—[Mr. Forth.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7 pm

The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Some hon. Members will recognise this clause as an old friend—which almost survived a number of attempts in Committee to spoil its clarity and simplicity. In re-introducing it, we have felt the need to change only one word in new section 259A, and that change is purely technical.
New clause 3 makes an important contribution to the deregulation of controls over the expansion of grant-maintained schools, by enabling GM schools to enlarge their premises by up to 50 per cent. without the need to publish statutory proposals. The provision is not entirely new, as non-significant enlargements can already be made to all schools without the need for publishing statutory proposals. Under current legislation, changes would normally be regarded as non-significant—and therefore not require statutory proposals—if they increased the size of a school by less than 25 per cent., or fewer than 30 places.
New section 259A(1), which is introduced by the new clause, would effectively change the definition of "significant enlargement" for grant-maintained schools to one in which the capacity of the premises is increased by more than 50 per cent. Similarly to current provision, schools would be able to add 30 places without publishing proposals, even when such a change would increase the size of premises by more than 50 per cent. To avoid very rapid cumulative increases occurring, schools would be required to examine the previous four-year period to assess whether a change is significant.
The increased freedom provided by the new clause would enable grant-maintained schools to respond to the wishes of parents and to decide for themselves what size of school will most usefully serve their specific area. Such changes will not necessarily require investment of additional public funds, because putting decisions more directly into the hands of schools will increase incentives for governors to explore other ways in which to finance necessary capital work. That is not freedom without responsibility, because—as we made clear in Committee—the Bill requires governors who propose to make enlargements to decide who has an interest, and to consult them about the proposals before making a decision to proceed.
Some hon. Members may be concerned that the change is limited to the grant-maintained sector, but we believe that it is appropriate for GM schools to take the lead in this matter. Not only are many GM schools popular with pupils and parents, but they are in the best position to investigate innovative approaches to funding additional provision. New clause 3 should enable them to expand to meet demand. I realise that, in some cases, expansion will occur in areas where there are surplus places, but there are ways in which to remove those places if they are in schools that parents do not choose.
I also realise that many popular schools are outside the GM sector. Those schools will continue, in the normal manner, to be able to make proposals for significant enlargements. We have made it clear that there will be


circumstances in which, in the interests of increasing choice and diversity, we will be willing to approve increases in places, even when surplus places exist in the area, and especially when subsequent removal of unsatisfactory provision is likely.
I hope that hon. Members will therefore understand that new clause 3 is a useful measure in increasing the autonomy and responsibility of GM schools and in giving them an opportunity to respond imaginatively to parents' wishes. It is an integral part of the Bill, and I hope that the House will approve it.

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: As we have already fully deployed our arguments in Committee on new clause 3—on 3 December 1996—and it was lost by the Government, there is little or no point in revisiting them; they have been reported in Hansard. I believe that we should move to a vote on the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 273.

Division No. 52]
[7.3 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Aitken, Jonathan
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Alexander, Richard
Coe, Sebastian


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Congdon, David


Amess, David
Conway, Derek


Arbuthnot, James
Cope, Sir John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Ashby, David
Couchman, James


Atkins, Robert
Cran, James


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Curry, David


Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)
Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)


Baldry, Tony
Day, Stephen


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bates, Michael
Devlin, Tim


Batiste, Spencer
Dicks, Terry


Bellingham, Henry
Dorrell, Stephen


Bendall, Vivian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dover, Den


Biffen, John
Duncan, Alan


Body, Sir Richard
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dunn, Bob


Booth, Hartley
Dykes, Hugh


Boswell, Tim
Eggar, Tim


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Elletson, Harold


Bowis, John
Emery, Sir Peter


Boyson, Sir Rhodes
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bright, Sir Graham
Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)


Brooke, Peter
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Evennett, David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Faber, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Fabricant, Michael


Burns, Simon
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Burt, Alistair
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Butcher, John
Fishburn, Dudley


Butler, Peter
Forman, Nigel


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Forth, Eric


Carrington, Matthew
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Cash, William
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Channon, Paul
Freeman, Roger


Chapman, Sir Sydney
French, Douglas


Churchill, Mr
Fry, Sir Peter


Clappison, James
Gale, Roger


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)
Gallie, Phil





Gardiner, Sir George
Marland, Paul


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marlow, Tony


Garnier, Edward
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gill, Christopher
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodlad, Alastair
Mates, Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gorst, Sir John
Merchant, Piers


Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Moate, Sir Roger


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Monro, Sir Hector


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gummer, John
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hague, William
Newton, Tony


Hamilton, Sir Archibald
Nicholls, Patrick


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hannam, Sir John
Onslow, Sir Cranley


Hargreaves, Andrew
Ottaway, Richard


Harris, David
Page, Richard


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Paice, James


Hawkins, Nick
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hawksley, Warren
Patten, John


Heald, Oliver
Pattie, Sir Geoffrey


Heath, Sir Edward
Pawsey, James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hendry, Charles
Pickles, Eric


Heseltine, Michael
Porter, David


Hicks, Sir Robert
Portillo, Michael


Higgins, Sir Terence
Powell, William (Corby)


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Rathbone, Tim


Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)
Redwood, John


Horam, John
Renton, Tim


Hordern, Sir Peter
Richards, Rod


Howell, David (Guildf'd)
Riddick, Graham


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Robathan, Andrew


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Roberts, Sir Wyn


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hunter, Andrew
Rowe, Andrew


Hurd, Douglas
Rumbold, Dame Angela


Jack, Michael
Sackville, Tom


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Sainsbury, Sir Timothy


Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)
Scott, Sir Nicholas


Jessel, Toby
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jones, Robert B (W Herts)
Shephard, Mrs Gillian


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)


Key, Robert
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


King, Tom
Sims, Sir Roger


Kirkhope, Timothy
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knapman, Roger
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfld)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Speed, Sir Keith


Knox, Sir David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Kynoch, George
Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spink, Dr Robert


Legg, Barry
Spring, Richard


Leigh, Edward
Sproat, Iain


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)
Stanley, Sir John


Lidington, David
Steen, Anthony


Lilley, Peter
Stephen, Michael


Lord, Michael
Stern, Michael


Luff, Peter
Stewart, Allan


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Streeter, Gary


MacGregor, John
Sumberg, David


MacKay, Andrew
Sweeney, Walter


Maclean, David
Sykes, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Madel, Sir David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Major, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Malone, Gerald
Thomason, Roy


Mans, Keith
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)






Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Watts, John


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Wells, Bowen


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wheeler, Sir John


Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Tracey, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Tredinnick, David
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Trend, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Trotter, Neville
Wilshire, David


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wolfson, Mark


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wood, Timothy


Waldegrave, William
Yeo, Tim


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Young, Sir George


Waller, Gary



Ward, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Mr. Gyles Brandreth and


Waterson, Nigel
Mr. Anthony Coombs.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cox, Tom


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cummings, John


Ainger, Nick
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)


Allen, Graham
Cunningham, Dr John


Alton, David
Dalyell, Tam


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Darting, Alistair


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Davidson, Ian


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Davies, Bryan (Odharn C)


Ashdown, Paddy
Davies, Chris (Littleborough)


Ashton, Joseph
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)


Austin-Walker, John
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Denham, John


Barnes, Harry
Dewar, Donald


Barron, Kevin
Dixon, Don


Battle, John
Dobson, Frank


Bayley, Hugh
Donohoe, Brian H


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Dowd, Jim


Beith, A J
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bell, Stuart
Eagle, Ms Angela


Benn, Tony
Eastham, Ken


Bennett, Andrew F
Ennis, Jeff


Bermingham, Gerald
Etherington, Bill


Berry, Roger
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Betts, Clive
Fatchett, Derek


Blair, Tony
Faulds, Andrew


Blunkett, David
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Boateng, Paul
Fisher, Mark


Bradley, Keith
Flynn, Paul


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foster, Derek


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Foulkes, George


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fraser, John


Burden, Richard
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Byers, Stephen
Galbraith, Sam


Caborn, Richard
Galloway, George


Callaghan, Jim
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Garrett, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
George, Bruce


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell-Savours, D N
Gilbert, Dr John


Cann, Jamie
Godman, Dr Norman A


Chidgey, David
Godsiff, Roger


Chisholm, Malcolm
Golding, Mrs Llin


Church, Ms Judith
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Clapham, Michael
Graham, Thomas


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Grocott, Bruce


Coffey, Ms Ann
Gunnell, John


Cohen, Harry
Hain, Peter


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hall, Mike


Corbett, Robin
Hanson, David


Corston, Ms Jean
Hardy, Peter


Cousins, Jim
Harman, Ms Harriet





Harvey, Nick
Morgan, Rhodri


Hattersley, Roy
Morley, Elliot


Henderson, Doug
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Heppell, John
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Mowlam, Ms Marjorie


Hinchliffe, David
Mudie, George


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Mullin, Chris


Hoey, Kate
Murphy, Paul


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)


Home Robertson, John
Oakes, Gordon


Hood, Jimmy
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Howatth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Olner, Bill


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
O'Neill, Martin


Howells, Dr Kim
Orme, Stanley


Hoyle, Doug
Paisley, Rev Ian


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pearson, Ian


Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pickthall, Colin


Hutton, John
Pike, Peter L


Illsley, Eric
Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)


Ingram, Adam
Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)


Jackson, Ms Gtenda (Hampst'd)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hitsborough)
Prescott, John


Jamieson, David
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Janner, Greville
Purchase, Ken


Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Johnston, Sir Russell
Radice, Giles


Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)
Rendel, David


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Kaufman, Gerald
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Keen, Alan
Rogers, Allan


Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)
Rooker, Jeff


Khabra, Piara S
Rooney, Terry


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Terry
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Sedgemore, Brian


Litherland, Robert
Sheerman, Barry


Livingstone, Ken
Sheldon, Robert


Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)
Shore, Peter


Loyden, Eddie
Short, Clare


McAllion, John
Simpson, Alan


McAvoy, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis


McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McCrea, Rev William
Smith, Chris (Islington S)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McFall, John
Soley, Clive


McKelvey, William
Spearing, Nigel


Mackinlay, Andrew
Spellar, John


McLeish, Henry
Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)


Maclennan, Robert
Steinberg, Gerry


McNamara, Kevin
Stevenson, George


MacShane, Denis
Stott, Roger


McWilliam, John
Strang, Dr Gavin


Madden, Max
Straw, Jack


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Manon, Mrs Alice
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mandelson, Peter
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Marek, Dr John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Thurnham, Peter


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Timms, Stephen


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Tipping, Paddy


Martlew, Eric
Touhig, Don


Maxton, John
Trickett, Jon


Meacher, Michael
Turner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Tyler, Paul


Michael, Alun
Vaz, Keith


Milburn, Alan
Walker, Sir Harold


Miller, Andrew
Walley, Ms Joan


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wareing, Robert N






Watson, Mike
Worthington, Tony


Wicks, Malcolm
Wray, Jimmy


Williams, Alan (Swansea W)



Wilson, Brian
Tellers for the Noes:


Winnick, David
Mr. Greg Pope and


Wise, Mrs Audrey
Mr. Joe Benton.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. David Blunkett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the consequential measures dependent on the new clause and given that the Bill is now severely damaged, will the Government withdraw the measure and come back to us so that we can form a consensus on those parts of the Bill on which the whole House agrees?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is not a matter for the Chair.

Ms Estelle Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek clarification. The clause was lost in Committee, but we went on to consider further clauses that related to it on the understanding that the Government would bring it back on Report. The Government have failed to carry this important new clause, on which later clauses depend. Can we have your guidance on what will happen to clauses that refer to the new clause that has been lost?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We must proceed with the Bill. The Government will no doubt take note of the points that have been made.

Mr. Blunkett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not dream of challenging your decision, but as it was ruled in Committee that the deletion of the clause would have consequential results on the remainder of the Bill, it is difficult to see how the Government can proceed with the Bill in its present form. They said in Committee that they could not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have nothing to add to what I have said. We must carry on with consideration of the Bill. I have no doubt that the Government will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

New clause 4

POWER OF MEMBERS OF STAFF TO RESTRAIN PUPILS

'. After section 550 of the Education Act 1996 there shall be inserted—

"Power to restrain pupils

Power of members of staff to restrain pupils

550A.—(1) A member of the staff of a school may use, in relation to any pupil at the school, such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purpose of preventing the pupil from doing (or continuing to do) any of the following, namely—

(a) committing any offence,
(b) causing personal injury to, or damage to the property of, any person (including the pupil himself), or
(c) engaging in any behaviour prejudicial to the maintenance of good order and discipline at the school or among any of its pupils, whether that behaviour occurs during a teaching session or otherwise.

(2) Subsection (1) applies where a member of the staff of a school is—

(a) on the premises of the school, or
(b) elsewhere at a time when, as a member of its staff, he has lawful control or charge of the pupil concerned;
but it does not authorise anything to be done in relation to a pupil which constitutes the giving of corporal punishment within the meaning of section 548.
(3) Subsection (1) shall not be taken to prevent any person from relying on any defence available to him otherwise than by virtue of this section.
(4) In this section—

"member of the staff, in relation to a school, means any teacher who works at the school and any other person who, with the authority of the head teacher, has lawful control or charge of pupils at the school;
"offence" includes anything that would be an offence but for the operation of any presumption that a person under a particular age is incapable of committing an offence.".'.—[Mr. Forth.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Forth: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 12 and 40.

Mr. Forth: The new clause is intended to help teachers. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome it, as the teachers' unions have. It will codify and clarify teachers' powers to restrain disruptive pupils. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber please leave quietly, and will those remaining please give the Minister a fair hearing?

Mr. Forth: Teachers and other staff authorised by the head teacher will have the—

Mr. James Pawsey: Will my hon. Friend help me and other hon. Members? Does the new clause have any implications for any new clauses, which we may debate later, that relate specifically to corporal punishment?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend will be aware that the wording of part of the new clause bears directly on the point that he has raised. To help my hon. Friend, I shall quote the new clause. It says that the clause
does not authorise anything to be done in relation to a pupil which constitutes the giving of corporal punishment within the meaning of section 548.
My hon. Friend will agree that, in framing this important provision, which has the support of teachers and their unions, we have been conscious of the fact that others see such matters from a different perspective and might have shared my hon. Friend's worry that it might overlap with any possible provisions for corporal punishment. That is why—I hope that my hon. Friend accepts the validity of this—we have taken the trouble to put into the new clause a specific form of words to clarify beyond doubt the fact that the ability of a teacher to use reasonable restraint in


trying to keep order in the classroom cannot and will not be construed as giving any sort of authority for the reintroduction of corporal punishment.

Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend might acknowledge that there is a fine line between restraint—preventing a pupil from hurting or injuring another pupil—and the use of corporal punishment. It might be construed that corporal punishment is being used in restraining a child. That is a fine point. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could spend a little time—for my benefit if for no one else's—explaining the distinction.

Mr. Forth: I understand my hon. Friend's point, which is important. He will remember that, in Committee—I think that it was when we were debating his new clause—similar points were raised about the confusion that might arise in the definition of corporal punishment. I understand why my hon. Friend is bringing a similar argument to bear on the possible definitional problems that might exist on restraint in the classroom. I have two reassurances for him, which I hope he will accept. First, there will inevitably be guidelines which, after due consultation, my Department will issue the better to give guidance to teachers, heads and others on how to interpret the clause and to put the issue beyond doubt. Secondly, any reasonable person reading the new clause, knowing its context, and understanding the motivation behind it, would have difficulty confusing reasonable restraint by a teacher with the administration of corporal punishment. I accept that my hon. Friend's argument might apply in extreme cases, but I doubt whether they would arise.

Mr. Pawsey: I apologise for continuing to interrupt my hon. Friend's speech. I understand that he is developing the theme. Does he intend to refer to the European perspective? He will know that there have been some erroneous claims that the European Court has ruled against the United Kingdom on the use of corporal punishment in schools.

Mr. Forth: indicated assent.

Mr. Pawsey: Clearly my hon. Friend agrees that those claims are erroneous. Will he confirm that the new clause does not fall foul of the European Court of Justice?

Mr. Forth: I am confident that there is no danger of our falling foul of the European Court of Human Rights on this because the measure is designed not only to protect teachers—rightly—against what are often said to be unfair and unfounded accusations, but to protect pupils. It will apply when a teacher restrains a pupil who may be fighting or in conflict with another. One of the important motivations behind the new clause—I am glad that my hon. Friend has given me the opportunity to explain this—is to provide additional protection to pupils. At a cursory reading, it may seem to be all about protecting teachers, but my hon. Friend, with his enormous knowledge and understanding of such matters, will know that one of the other purposes of the new clause is to provide real protection to pupils. We are giving teachers the power to restrain pupils who are harming one another—or even, as might occasionally happen, harming themselves—or causing disruption in the classroom.
Existing common law principles allow teachers to take reasonable steps to restrain seriously disruptive pupils, but many people seem not to understand that, perhaps because those principles are derived from 19th century case law.

Mr. Pawsey: I am following my hon. Friend's argument closely. When a teacher intervenes in a classroom brawl or, more likely, a playground brawl, is there a risk of that teacher falling foul of insurance provision? Can my hon. Friend assure me that there will be adequate insurance for teachers, and that any teacher who might be injured as a result of intervening in some disagreement between pupils will be covered by terms of insurance?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting and relevant point; I should like to take further advice on it. My initial reaction is that I do not believe that the new clause would materially affect the position either of teachers or of schools. Ever cautious, however, about giving an off-the-cuff response to an important and substantive point, I should like, if my hon. Friend will allow me, to consider the point and let him know my conclusions. I am, however, fairly confident that the advice I am giving is sound.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: My right hon. Friend may be aware that I and a number of other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), have explored insurance in some detail. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the position of the teaching unions is significant in this regard? It is clear to all my hon. Friends that many teachers join the teaching unions when they first qualify simply to get insurance. Their membership is then regarded by the often militant political leadership of those unions as in some way being support for their political policies. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a good thing if insurance cover was separate from union membership—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Minister replies, I must remind all hon. Members that interventions are supposed to be brief and to the point. We seem to be straying away from the new clause.

Mr. Forth: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) that he makes an interesting point which should, perhaps, be pursued. Many, however, would say that it is unlikely that people as perceptive and worldly wise as teachers would sign up to something as important as a trade union for something in a sense as trivial as the obtaining of insurance cover. Were that to be the case, it could give rise to some rather worrying aspects. The matter should, perhaps, be pursued but not necessarily within the confines of our debate on the new clause.
There have been cases of teachers being investigated by social services departments or the police for trivial instances of restraint of pupils. That is absurd and it is one of the main reasons why we tabled the new clause.

Mr. Pawsey: I apologise to my right hon. Friend for failing to congratulate him on the signal honour he has


received. I am sure that all Conservative Members join me in warmly welcoming his membership of the Privy Council.
I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to proposed subsection (1)(c), which refers to
engaging in any behaviour prejudicial to the maintenance of good order and discipline at the school".
My right hon. Friend will recall that our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently referred to the cadet corps in schools. Does he believe that the phrase I quoted has some significance to school cadets?

Mr. Forth: I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that the view that our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other colleagues have taken is that the development of the ethos that exists in the cadet corps can be a force for good only if it is offered to more and more pupils in schools for the good reason, which my hon. Friend and other Conservative Members well understand, that the team spirit and self-discipline that exist in the cadet corps sit comfortably with the objectives of the new clause. My hon. Friend makes a good and effective point.

Mr. Hawkins: I join in the congratulations that have already been given to my right hon. Friend on his membership of the Privy Council. Does he agree that one of the interesting things about the way in which the recent suggestion about voluntary service in the cadet force has been portrayed is that the leaders of the teaching unions have deliberately misrepresented it as a plan to make cadet service compulsory? The whole point is that our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was talking about voluntary service. There was deliberate misconstruction which the media—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already drawn it to the attention of hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) that interventions are supposed to be brief and to the point. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman heard me; I made that point only a couple of seconds ago, and my voice has not gone at all.

Mr. Forth: Regrettably, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South is right. We find so often that misinformation is spread, often deliberately, by people who wish to misrepresent what the Government intend to do. In that way, they spread unnecessary fears among teachers and, occasionally, among parents. Surely we all understand that membership of the cadet corps has always been voluntary and will continue to be so. We are saying that membership should be encouraged.

Mr. Kilfoyle: Does the Minister accept that there is virtually no disagreement about the new clause? Does he also accept that his hon. Friends do not need to filibuster?

Will he accept the Opposition's advice, and let us get on with the more substantive points of difference between the two sides of the House?

Mr. Pawsey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) to suggest that Conservative Members are filibustering when we are—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the Chair had thought that there was filibustering or tedious repetition, the Chair would have intervened. So far, the debate has been in order.

Mr. Forth: I hope that, in the same spirit in which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) was able to accept the brevity of the previous debate, he will allow that the House occasionally wishes to explore in a little more detail the provisions of a rather more complicated new clause. In deference to his request, however, I shall try to make progress.
I was arguing, was I not, that there had been cases of teachers being investigated by social services departments and the police. There has been at least one well-publicised case of a teacher being arrested after intervening to break up a playground fight. That cannot be right. Teachers and appropriate other staff in schools, such as lunchtime supervisors, should be allowed, without fear of prosecution, to use moderate physical restraint where it is necessary to stop pupils fighting. Occasionally, where a pupil is damaging school property or indulging in persistent, defiant disruption which is causing a complete breakdown in good order and discipline in the classroom, there may be nothing for it but for the teacher to lead that pupil away by the arm even though the pupil is not necessarily causing injury to himself or others, or would not be guilty of an offence because he is under the age of criminal responsibility.
Keeping discipline is a key part of a teacher's responsibilities. The teachers' unique position with regard to the youngsters in their charge and the classroom environment justifies setting out in a single statutory provision that they may lawfully use reasonable force in certain closely specified circumstances. I stress again that that has nothing to do with corporal punishment, which remains largely illegal. Prevention and punishment are two very different things.
I also emphasise that where a teacher has to restrain a pupil, he or she may use only such force as is reasonable in the circumstances. Ultimately, of course, it will be for the courts to determine what constitutes reasonable force, but I expect that a court would decide that the new clause would not authorise the use of force to restrain a pupil from committing trivial misdemeanours. Force should be used only as a last resort to prevent seriously bad behaviour and, in any event, any force used should be proportionate to the misbehaviour. My Department will issue detailed guidance on the use of physical restraint after consulting the relevant interests. I am sure that Opposition Members and my hon. Friends would expect no less of the Department.

Mr. David Jamieson: Can the Minister clarify a point? As one who has pulled apart warring pupils on many occasions, I thought that it was


within the law at the moment that reasonable force could be used to restrain a child who was doing damage to himself or someone else. Would it be deemed a serious misdemeanour if a child was not trying to inflict damage on someone else or on property, but was trying to leave the room without the teacher's permission? Could that be deemed an occasion on which such restraint could be used?

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman may—inadvertently, I am sure—be trying to draw me into a matter of detail, albeit an important detail, in advance of the consultation that we want to conduct before we issue guidance. My initial reaction is that an incident such as he describes would probably be more of a disciplinary matter than one that justified the sort of restraint that we are discussing in the new clause. That point probably illustrates better than any other the fact that all reasonable people, especially teachers in the classroom, can readily identify the cases that require this exceptional restraint to be used and the great majority of cases in which there would be no question of its being used.

Mr. Jamieson: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that point. I raised it because I believe that the cases that have been investigated are more to do with the teacher using restraint because a child has disobeyed an order than preventing a child doing damage to themselves or property. It would be helpful if that matter was clarified because, as the Minister will appreciate, there is a great difference between that type of incident and others. In my view, the only circumstance in which a teacher should use that type of restraint is when there is immediate danger to the child, some other person, or property.

Mr. Forth: I am sure that the guidance, when it is issued after consultation, will reflect that point, although I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that there is always a limit to the extent to which guidance issued in good faith from my Department can, or should seek to, detail every conceivable circumstance that might arise in the classroom. A balance has to be struck between giving teachers reasonable guidance, reassurance and examples of best practice, and seeking to set out in black and white every conceivable circumstance that might arise and what can be done in black and white. However, I accept the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's point and I am sure that we will endeavour to ensure that the guidance that will follow consultation, should the new clause be accepted by the House, will strike that balance.
The new clause would introduce a special provision for teachers, and it should have no effect on the ability of other professional groups, or indeed the public, to rely on defences currently available under the general law when they are prosecuted or sued for damages for assault.
Amendments Nos. 12 and 40 simply insert the new clause in the Education Act 1996 immediately after the sections concerning corporal punishment and before the new clause concerning detention. I hope that I have been able to satisfy the House, including my hon. Friends, about the intention behind the new clause. The Opposition spokesman has indicated his general support and I hope that the House will also be able to support the new clause.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I wish only that the Minister had been as willing to consider the consequences of the defeat of

new clause 3 as he was to debate the consequences of new clause 4 for new clause 5, tabled by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). They went on ad nauseam about that, but the Minister does not appear to have an opinion on the effect on the Bill of the elimination of new clause 3. Nevertheless, the Minister is correct to say that there is agreement; the broad intention of new clause 4 is both welcome and unproblematic for the Opposition. It seeks to place on the statute book what is in effect the common law.
The Secretary of State clearly recognises—as, I know, does the Minister—the importance of teachers and others placed in charge of pupils having a measure of protection against physical attacks by pupils, from accusations by parents and from mischievous claims of assault. While fully acknowledging the importance of protecting children from abuse, authorities such as the Council of Local Education Authorities and others have recently undertaken work with a range of other agencies, including the teachers' associations, to develop guidelines on practice and procedures for head teachers and teachers involved in allegations of sexual or physical abuse. The intention of the Secretary of State in tabling the new clause appears to be in broadly the same spirit.

Mr. Pawsey: I am not seeking to be mischievous, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that if better discipline were maintained in the nation's classrooms, there would be less risk of fighting in playgrounds and therefore less risk to teachers intervening in fights?

Mr. Kilfoyle: That is self-evident, but I posit the question that I put to the hon. Member in Committee: does he see the distinction between discipline, which is interiorised, and order, which is imposed? That question goes to the core of the quality of teaching, parenting and many other issues.
Notwithstanding the apparently helpful intentions of the Secretary of State, there may be grounds for the expression of some caution in respect of the proposed subsection (1)(c)—which the Minister mentioned—because it is broadly worded. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth also intervened on the point. Proposed subsections (1)(a) and (b) are more specifically defined, but I wish to seek reassurance that the phrase
engaging in any behaviour prejudicial to the maintenance of good order and discipline at the school
will not generate a loophole that sanctions the use of physical restraint in circumstances that require some other, more appropriate, action from a teacher to diffuse the tension of a potential disciplinary or behavioural problem. For example, if two pupils were engaged in a disruptive verbal dispute, might proposed subsection (1)(c) legitimise the hasty use of physical force to place them at a distance from each other when a verbal reprimand or use of the detention would be sufficient?
I hope that the Minister will expand on his earlier comments and clarify the issue I have raised. I also hope that his assurance on the matter will be covered by the guidelines that will emerge from the consultations that he announced. The Minister announced so many consultations in Committee that he earned the nickname of the Minister for consultations, but the vital point about


consultation is that the Government should take notice of the conclusions of consultations and apply them when they draft legislation or set out guidelines.

Mr. Forth: Like the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) has posed a reasonable question and I can give him a preliminary answer. Good order—which is, I think, at the core of his question—could be defined as when pupils' education is not being seriously or persistently disrupted. When the guidelines emerge, I suspect that words such as "seriously" and "persistently" will provide the key to the question. We are not expecting teachers to use physical restraint to deal with trivial or, dare I say, routine classroom difficulties of the kind that one expects in a roomful of boisterous, eight, 10 or 12-year-olds, but if there is serious or persistent disruption, whether fighting or abuse of property or people, the new clause could possibly come into effect. If the disruption were not serious or persistent, we would not expect the measures to be used.
We have a broad basis on which to proceed, but we will want to fill in the detail after consultation. I know that the hon. Member for Walton is not suggesting that we should not consult, but I am conscious of the number of times that I have undertaken to consult. I hope that we can all agree that that is the right way forward. Through my own experience in the Department, I have learnt that consulting is not only wise but usually fruitful and I am sure that a much better set of guidelines will emerge after consultation than would emerge without it. With that justification, I hope that I have managed to answer the hon. Gentleman's point.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Ms Margaret Hodge: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you tell us whether the Government intend to make a statement on how they will deal with clauses 4 and 5 as they are consequential on new clause 3, which was rejected by the House? Do they intend to amend or withdraw those clauses?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no information whatever on what the Government intend to do.

New clause 8

LOCAL PUBLIC INQUIRIES

'(1) In section 36 of the Education Act 1996 the following shall be inserted after subsection (3)—

"(3A) Where an authority has—

(a) published proposals requiring the approval of the Secretary of State under section 37 below;
(b) received objections exceeding in number a minimum specified in regulations; or
(c) published proposals affecting more than a minimum number of educational institutions specified in regulations

it shall cause to take place a local public inquiry to be chaired by an independent person of suitable standing

(3B) A local public inquiry under this section shall after hearing such evidence and representations as it considers appropriate, prepare and publish a report making recommendations as to the proposals".

(2) In section 37(5) of the Education Act 1996 after the first "he" the following words shall be inserted—"shall have regard to the recommendations of any local public inquiry established under section 36(3A) and".'.—[Mr. Kilfoyle.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of new clause 8 is to require local public inquiries to be held when an authority proposes new schools, significant changes in their character or enlargement. It is consistent with the view that the House expressed earlier that planning should take place for the provision and character of school places. I am sure that once again the Government will agree with the Opposition.
Changes to schools always arouse public interest. Any hon. Member with experience of proposals to close schools will know that they invariably meet resistance. Indeed, in a recent attempt to remove surplus places in the authority in my constituency, I experienced both ends of the spectrum. As we all know and agree, the prudent use of public resources demands that the availability of school places should be kept in step with need. Therefore, where there are too many, some must be removed. At some point, removing surplus places must mean closing schools. Although everyone accepts the rationality of that argument, people very often find it hard to accept that their school should be closed.
In long and involved debates in Committee about the optimum number of surplus places that ought to be held in a given authority, the Minister and I did not disagree that the figure should be around the 10 per cent. mark. Nevertheless, national figures show that there are wide variations and large fluctuations between authorities and between primary and secondary sectors, which must be viewed rationally by the Government of the day and the local authority responsible.
Present procedures for deciding which schools need to be closed, and how, quite properly require public consultation—there we go, mentioning public consultation again. The present law requires local authorities to publish notices of their intention, to invite comment from interested parties and, after consideration of the consultation, to submit final proposals to the Secretary of State. Having taken into account any further representations, the Secretary of State must determine whether the proposal should go ahead or be modified, which was the essence of our argument against new clause 3, and against clause 3 in Committee. I make no apology for repeating that the House saw fit to remove the clause from the Bill.
The procedure is open, but because a local authority proposes the original plans and conducts the consultation and review process, it is open to the charge of being a judge in its own court or of being partial. Although the final decision rests with the Secretary of State, objectors sometimes suspect that the process is a sham because the outcome has been determined in advance. I am sure that LEAs are open and responsible public bodies and that such suspicion is invariably without foundation, but the structure of the process lends itself to such an interpretation. That is despite the fact that the lengthy process could require publication of the plans, consultation, revision of the plans and further


consideration, as well as the Secretary of State being bound to give further careful consideration to the final plans that are submitted.
It is normally expected that the Secretary of State will require about six months to consider such proposals; on occasions, no doubt for good reasons, consideration by the Department for Education and Employment can extend considerably beyond that period. The new clause's purpose, therefore, is to address such a flaw in the present system. The substitution of a formal local public inquiry under the control of an independent person for the local authority's consideration of comments on its original proposals will enable objectors to feel that they have been given a fair hearing—certainly fairer than they feel they have now.
If the inquiry comes down in favour of the LEA's original proposals or if the authority accepts recommendations made to the inquiry, it is likely that further objection will be much reduced, if not removed completely. Such a process would not preclude the LEA from rejecting all or part of the inquiry's findings, but, if it chose to do so, that fact would be all the more obvious.
The procedure would benefit the Secretary of State. Given that she is rather beleaguered these days, I think that she would welcome that. Instead of employing central Government officials to cover ground that had already been trodden locally in the review of the proposals and any complaints or objections, the Secretary of State would have to hand a separately published report from an independent source with the evidence recorded, analysed and set out. It is likely that that would save the time of DFEE officials and facilitate the Secretary of State's decision-making process.
When the open process of public inquiry had reached a conclusion and the authority was willing to act on it, the Secretary of State could give approval with some confidence. On the other hand, if there were conflict, it would be clear that the Secretary of State would need to consider carefully how any outstanding differences should be resolved.
The new clause makes it clear that the expense of a local public inquiry should be incurred only when the scope and seriousness of the proposed changes were of sufficient magnitude to warrant it. The Secretary of State's regulatory power to determine and modify in the light of experience what the threshold should be before an inquiry were triggered would afford some flexibility. It would be open to a local authority to invoke the procedure voluntarily if it believed that the seriousness of the case justified its doing so.
There is a legal precedent for the holding of public inquiries on school planning issues. It was introduced by the Education Act 1993, and it now forms section 503 of the Education Act 1996. I know that the Minister will be au fait with the details, line by line and word by word. The section provides for a public inquiry where the Secretary of State has proposed rationalisation or reorganisation against which objections have been laid. The new clause draws on that precedent and extends the value of the mechanism to more general cases.
In answer to those who may question whether a public inquiry would increase the cost—both in money and time—of the process of reorganisation, I would argue that it need not be so. First, the inquiry will be triggered only where there is a major reorganisation in prospect.

Secondly, the cost of the proceedings would be offset against the cost of undertaking the internal consultation process currently required of LEAs, and would yield savings by avoiding repetition of the process by central Government officials. Although costs will obviously be incurred in supporting the new procedure, they should be offset by the savings in time of public officials and in the overall time taken to progress rationalisation.

Mr. Forth: I should say straight away that we are as concerned as anyone that, where statutory proposals are made by local education authorities, they should be considered with the greatest care and that the decisions made should take full account of the views of parents and other schools in the area. We are also conscious of the need for proposals to be dealt with as quickly as possible to avoid unnecessary uncertainty. That is surely particularly important where a school is proposed for closure, although since closure proposals require approval under section 169 of the Education Act 1996, and not section 37, they would not be affected by the proposed new clause. The proposals affected would therefore be those that are less controversial.
In our view, the existing statutory procedures ensure that full consideration is given to each proposal. LEAs are required to consult all interested parties before they bring forward proposals. There is then a two-month period, during which local people, other schools in the area, the Funding Agency for Schools and the Further Education Funding Council may submit objections to the LEA. There is a further statutory period of one month for those objections to be passed to the Secretary of State with the LEA's comments.
In considering the proposals, the Department has available not only the statutory notice but a detailed statement of case, any objections that have been made, the LEA's comments on those objections and any other comments or letters of support that may be sent to the Secretary of State. Specialist advice is then sought from Her Majesty's inspectorate. Where appropriate, Ministers may also receive delegations from opponents of a particular proposal. All the evidence is carefully considered before the Secretary of State reaches a decision.
Let me emphasise again that, through the existing procedures, all the concerned parties have an opportunity to make their views known at the consultation stage and, if they are still not satisfied, by objecting to the proposals.
In our view, the establishment of a public inquiry to deal with some proposals would be unnecessarily expensive, would duplicate the work done by the LEA at the consultation stage and would seriously delay consideration of the proposals. At the end of the day, the decision would still rest with the Secretary of State. For those reasons we do not consider that the new clause should be accepted.

8 pm

Mr. Kilfoyle: The Minister missed the point completely. I do not doubt one iota of what he said about the current procedures, but the point of the new clause is to lighten the load that those procedures create, not only for local authorities but for central Government. We believed that the Minister was an advocate of far less bureaucracy than currently obtains, and the new clause


would facilitate the removal of bureaucracy—it would certainly facilitate the removal of the repetition within the current process. Nevertheless, given that the Minister has chosen to retain the current powers, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 9

EXCLUSION OF BASELINE ASSESSMENT SCHEME FROM SELECTION

'( )—(1) No baseline assessment scheme designed or adopted in accordance with sections 31–34 shall be used for the purposes of the selection of pupils as to school admissions whether by reference to ability or aptitude or otherwise.
(2) The duty on a school governing body to adopt a scheme under section 32(1) and the duty to carry out assessment under such a scheme under section 33(1) shall be undertaken soley for the purposes for which the scheme was designed in accordance with section 31.'.—[Ms Estelle Morris.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Ms Estelle Morris: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 50, in clause 31, page 27, line 16, at end insert
'and no assessment under such a scheme shall be used for the purposes of selection as to school admissions whether by reference to ability or aptitude or otherwise.'.
Government amendment No. 65.
No. 51, in clause 33, page 28, line 12, at end insert
'and such an assessment shall be undertaken solely for the purposes specified in section 31 above.'.

Ms Morris: I note that the group includes Government amendment No. 65, with which the Opposition have some sympathy, given that it was tabled in response to points made in Committee. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for reflecting on the issues and to state our broad agreement with that amendment.
As we know, the main provisions of part I propose to extend selection in primary and secondary schools without the need to publish a statutory notice or to conduct the subsequent consultation. The proposal to expand selection in primary schools is a backward step that will find little support, but the purpose of the new clause is to ensure that baseline assessment is not used by schools as part of any selection process.
It is astonishing that, at a time when our primary schools face so many problems—class size, unfit and crumbling buildings, low literacy levels and poor teacher morale, to name but a few—the Government should find legislative time to introduce a measure that is irrelevant to primary pupils' needs. Currently, primary schools, like secondary schools, can select up to 15 per cent. of their intake without publishing a statutory notice. The Government intend to increase that limit to 20 per cent. It is strange that a party that spent its time in government in the 1970s closing more selective schools than any other Government in the history of this nation should reintroduce selection in its farewell piece of legislation in the 1990s.
Why is that happening? What is it all about? Can it be that Conservative Members have been bombarded with letters from parents clamouring for the introduction of a five-plus and a seven-plus? Are schools lobbying the Government, day in and day out, appealing to Ministers to allow them to select children at five or at seven? Is there new evidence to show that segregating pupils at five and seven will help to raise standards?
In Committee, the Minister could offer no evidence of any demand from anywhere for an extension of selection at primary level, but this part of the Bill is even more ill thought out. He admitted that he did not even know how many primary schools had used the existing power and had exercised their right to select. There we have it: a flagship piece of legislation—a half-a-flagship piece of legislation now—to establish a primary grammar school in every town, yet the Minister does not know whether parents or schools want it. He does not know how many primary schools already select or the effects—if any—of the selection that is already taking place. In Committee, he said:
joyously, I might say—we do not know the answer.
He added:
I am able to display a degree of indifference".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 26 November 1996; c. 94.]
We would not mind the Minister's indifference or joyous ignorance so much if the provisions of part I were only irrelevant, but the trouble is that they are potentially damaging. The arguments against selection are well known and well made: it weakens parental choice and preference; it institutionalises low expectations of children; and it labels too many of our young children as failures. All the arguments that are self-evident in respect of selection at the age of 11 are even more self-evident in respect of children aged five or seven. I do not believe that primary schools want to select but, as long as the provision exists in legislation, schools may choose to deal with the problem of demand for places exceeding supply by selecting on ability or aptitude. This part of the Bill cannot be ignored—it is irrelevant but has to be tackled because it is dangerous.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: There are many hon. Members in the Chamber who did not sit on the Committee. May I inquire whether, in Committee, the Government dealt with the inevitable knock-on effect of the exercise of this scheme in respect of a journey to school from the neighbouring area? What was the Minister's response—if any—to that most disruptive effect on parents and pupils within any neighbourhood or town?

Ms Morris: My hon. Friend's interest in education and matters of selection and his support for comprehensive education are well known. One of the problems we encountered in Committee was that the Government failed to understand that, if one school decides to select, that decision affects other schools. The legislation not only gives individual schools the right to select, but creates troublesome consequences for all the other schools in the area. My hon. Friend gave some examples of the difficulties that might be caused.
At primary level, the vast majority of parents choose to send their children to local schools. There is, in most communities, a strong notion of a primary school serving


its local neighbourhood. Children attend the same school as their brothers and sisters and their neighbours' children. They identify with the school in their community. The primary school is both parents' and pupils' introduction to the school system. That identity—that association of the primary school with its community—helps to give primary children stability. Selection at primary level threatens that. If schools select 20 per cent. of their intake through academic selection, the same number of children may be refused the right to attend their local school.
The 11-plus examination notoriously failed to predict accurately the academic potential of children. It often got it wrong and thousands of children paid the price. Why do Ministers think that a child's academic potential can be accurately predicted at the ages of five and seven, when we know that it cannot be done when the child is 11? What concerned us most in Committee was the Minister's suggestion that baseline assessment could be used by primary schools as the means of selecting pupils. That was worrying for two reasons. First, it will not work and, secondly and more seriously, it is a threat to the emerging consensus about the merits of baseline assessment.
There is a growing appreciation of the value of baseline assessment and the Minister knows that that part of the Bill was welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. Such assessment is a sensible approach to determining what a child knows and what the child can do when he or she starts school. It is useful for setting targets so that teachers can ensure that every pupil makes appropriate progress. In Labour-led local authorities where baseline assessment has been introduced and pioneered, it has already been shown that it can help to raise standards.
As far as I know, until the Minister spoke in Committee, no one had thought of using baseline assessment as a means of selecting children for primary school entry. The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority document makes it clear that it is not designed for that purpose. SCAA outlines four purposes of baseline assessment—to identify the child's strength and learning needs, to enable the teacher to plan appropriate teaching and learning activities, to identify the child's individual learning needs, including special educational needs, and to provide information that will inform future discussion with parents about their child's learning process. It is clear from the SCAA consultation document that none of the purposes of baseline assessment is fit for use as entrance tests at primary level.
The Minister must understand—he did not do so in Committee—that there is a vast difference between a technique, such as baseline assessment, that can identify a child's strengths and needs at a specific moment, and an assessment that can guess what his or her future academic achievement or potential might be.
I, for one, do not believe that it is possible to develop an effective five-plus or seven-plus assessment. I believe that it would be damaging to do so. It would not be welcomed by parents or schools. However, in many ways, that is not the purpose of new clause 9. The Minister has caused a serious problem: he has muddied the waters on baseline assessment and he has risked damaging the consensus that has been constructed around its introduction. It cannot be a way of diagnostically assessing a pupil and a predictor of academic ability.
New clause 9 would make clear once and for all what many of us believed—that baseline assessment should not be used as a means of selecting pupils at primary level. As baseline assessment is good for schools, good for children and good for parents, the Government should take no more risks with it. They should ensure that they take the opportunity to make it clear that baseline assessment was never intended to be used, and never will be used, as a way of allowing primary schools to select their pupils for intake at the age of five or seven.

Mr. Jamieson: In Committee, the Minister of State said that he felt that much of the legislation that had passed through the House in recent years had been concerned, not with raising the standards of children's education, but with tinkering with systems of education. We have before us tonight a proposal to introduce more selection in both primary and secondary schools—another example of the Government not finding ways to improve children's education, but tinkering with the system at the edges.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for not raising the matter immediately, but I was taken by surprise. Is it not the custom of the House that when an amendment is moved, we receive an initial indication from the Government side of the House? Unless we do, some of the speeches that you may wish to hear from us will be bereft of the knowledge of the Government's point of view.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot help that. It is entirely up to Ministers to attempt to catch my eye. If they do not do so, they do not get called.

Mr. Jamieson: Perhaps I may help my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). It would seem that, after the Division a few minutes ago, some of the steam has gone out of Ministers and there is a reluctance to speak about matters, except—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. To clarify the matter for the House and for yourself, I fully intend to speak towards the end of the debate, if I have the opportunity to catch your eye.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is the explanation.

Mr. Jamieson: I thought that my well-chosen comments might bring the Minister to her feet to explain her silence and her Trappist appearance on the Front Bench. We look forward to hearing the Minister answer the excellent points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), but I noticed, during the passage of the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Act 1996, when the Bill before us was discussed in Committee, and in many debates, that the Minister is sometimes reluctant to expose her views to the debates that we have in such Committees. I am sad that we have not had the benefit of the Minister's thoughts on these important matters as a prelude to our discussions.
When the Bill was introduced, we understood that selection would apply to the secondary sector. I seem to remember that even the Secretary of State looked taken aback when it was suggested that the proposals in this legislation might also apply to primary schools.
8.15 pm
I suspect that many of the Members who are, sadly, absent from the Conservative Benches tonight—

Mr. Pawsey: We are here.

Mr. Jamieson: I am glad to hear that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) is here. Perhaps later he might go and rally some of his troops and get them into the Lobby to vote on some of these matters. Very few Conservative Members are present, and we saw earlier that the Government could not even rally the troops for a vote on a vital clause. They have lost not once but twice. To lose a vote once is unfortunate, but twice is sheer carelessness. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, who is barracking from a sedentary position, will go and use his barrack-room tactics on some of his hon. Friends, who were not in the Lobby to vote on what was thought to be a vital clause for the Government.

Mr. John Gunnell: In view of the clause being lost twice, it seems to me that the House has expressed its view on new clause 3 extremely firmly. It does not want it. It did not want it in Committee. The whole House does not want it. It cannot possibly be re-introduced in the Lords because we would then have the Government encouraging the Lords to overrule the Commons. Does my hon. Friend agree that that clearly would be completely out of order, constitutionally?

Mr. Pawsey: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your advice? You have heard what Labour Members have said. Would I, however, be right in saying that there would be no objection to that new clause being introduced in another place, and that if it were carried in another place it could be introduced in this place, under the general heading of Lords amendments?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I am not going to rule on hypothetical suggestions.

Mr. Jamieson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. With your usual wisdom, you put the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth firmly back in his place. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) has raised an interesting constitutional issue. A vital part of a Bill has failed to pass through Committee and has failed to pass through the House tonight, and the Government may have to ask those in another place to amend something that we in this place have decided that we do not want. We look forward to that.

Mr. Pawsey: rose—

Mr. Jamieson: I see that the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene. I look forward to his explanation on this important matter.

Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman mentioned constitutional reform. Am I not right in saying that the Labour party wished to reform the other place? Given the

circumstances of today's debate, do I take it that he, at least, will no longer support the constitutional proposals being advanced by his leader?

Mr. Jamieson: Madam Deputy Speaker, if I answered the hon. Gentleman, you would rightly draw me to order for speaking out of order on new clause 9.

Mr. Pawsey: That is a hypothetical case; try.

Mr. Jamieson: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we shall have a reform in this place, and that will be that we shall shortly be sitting on the Government Benches, and those Conservative Members that are left—the rump, and possibly not the hon. Gentleman—will be sitting on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. David Evennett: Keep dreaming.

Mr. Jamieson: There are various questions about selection which Conservative Members really must answer. The first concerns a point that emerged clearly when the Bill was given its Second Reading—it was made by a number of Conservative Members too. Let us consider an area where the secondary school serves a local population and there are no other schools nearby. What happens if that school is oversubscribed and then decides to select—in the case of an LEA school, up to 20 per cent. of its intake? Will large numbers of local children be rejected in favour of children from well outside the area whose parents can afford the transport?
Before Christmas, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment visited the excellent Tavistock college in Devon, where she saw the wonderful language unit and learned how popular the college is. It is a comprehensive school for 11 to 19-year-olds, and it achieves better results than were gained in the old days, when there were grammar schools and secondary moderns in the town. What would happen if a school like that, without consulting local people or the council, chose to run its own tests and set up a grammar stream? Could local parents be prevented from using their local school for their children? [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is deep in conversation with her ministerial colleagues on this vital point; I am glad that she is listening to their views.
The problem becomes even more serious in the context of primary schools. If an infant school operated some form of selection, that could have far reaching consequences for parents and children in the locality. It is quite reasonable to expect a child at secondary school to travel one or two miles—in rural areas, as much as 10 or 20 miles—but it would be outrageous if a primary school chose to go selective and ruled out a number of children from the neighbourhood.
How would the admissions criteria work when such a school decided to take some children via the selective procedure? What criteria would the school then use to turn down other children?
Listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley it was clear to me that there is no enthusiasm on the part of parents for further selective education. The Minister may recall that, 15 years ago or thereabouts, there were attempts in Solihull to return to selection. When parents realised that their local comprehensives could suddenly


again become grammar schools or secondary moderns, they spoke out loud and clear. Further selection was roundly turned down—[Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) has arrived in the Chamber. I hope that he will give us the benefit of his enormous wisdom and experience. He and I served on Solihull council together. In fact, everything he knows he learned at my feet. He sat just in front of me in the council chamber and used to turn to me for advice and assistance. Being the generous person that I am, I helped him a great deal—and look where he is today. He will remember how parents in the area reacted. The good people of Knowle and Dorridge—hardly socialist enclaves, although we may have got a few votes from them—rose up to a man, or woman, and rejected the idea of more selection. They had had a taste of the old system and they did not like it or want to return to it.
The hon. Member for Solihull will know of the excellent Arden school, and of my old school, Tudor Grange, which now gets better examination results as a comprehensive than it did as a grammar school. The hon. Gentleman will know that more than 80 per cent. of the children at those two schools achieve five or more GCSEs at A to C grades. Parents there do not want to return to selection.

Mr. Pawsey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his argument is a powerful one in favour of added choice and diversity in schools? He will recall that, in Rugby, we have maintained grammar schools; we have Rugby high school for girls and Laurence Sheriff grammar school for boys, both of which have an enviable reputation in the town for providing high quality education. Does he agree that the quality of education rests to a great extent on the quality of the primary schools in Rugby? The fact is that the very existence of an 11-plus ensures a tendency to teach up to that examination, thereby enhancing all secondary education across the borough.

Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman says that he believes in choice. We too believe in choice, but with a difference. Conservative Members believe that choice lies with the school—to choose its pupils. We believe that pupils and parents should choose the school. Selection means that the school selects the children, and there is no parental choice. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that all parents, regardless of the ability of their children, can choose to send the latter to grammar school, he is wrong. Children who do not pass the test end up in secondary moderns—there is no choice about that.
Real choice comes when parents can choose a good comprehensive on its merits from among several in the vicinity. That is real choice: not taking an examination and failing.

Mr. Pawsey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way to me a third time. The principle of selection was discredited in some quarters because we failed to put adequate funds into what were known as secondary moderns and junior technical schools. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that? The mistake was not giving them an adequate share of resources between the 1940s and 1960s; had they received an adequate share, the tripartite system that worked so well in Germany would have worked equally well here.

Mr. Jamieson: There could be a great deal of truth in what the hon. Gentleman says, in some authorities' areas.

It may have been true of Warwickshire. In the 1950s, secondary modern schools were often built without libraries because it was not thought that children who were going to leave at 15 would need them. The idea was that the girls would learn cookery and sewing and get married, and the boys would go off to learn a trade.
The problem is that the hon. Gentleman is arguing against a return to selection. Selection means that we hold some children in higher esteem than others—that is what was wrong with the bipartite system. Pupils who went to secondary moderns felt that they were receiving an inferior education. In Warwickshire—I have seen the papers to prove this—a few months after the 11-plus children received a piece of paper saying, "You have passed. You will be going to X or Y grammar school," or a different piece of paper saying, "You have failed. You will now go to the local secondary modern school." That is why those schools were not held in the same esteem in the public eye, and why we say that we need a fully comprehensive system. Selection is not appropriate because, unlike the hon. Gentleman, we do not want to return to the bad old days of the 1950s and 1960s.

Mr. Pawsey: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again. Does he accept that in Warwickshire, we have a safety net, as it is called? That means that young people who go to the high schools can transfer at age 16 to the sixth form in a grammar school. [Interruption.] I cannot give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) as this is an intervention, but if she wants to intervene in the speech by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) and take up the point, I shall be interested to hear her comments. She taught in Warwickshire schools, so she knows that pupils can transfer from a high school to a grammar school. The safety net operates in my county.

Mr. Jamieson: I wondered for a moment who the hon. Gentleman was intervening on—me or my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley. We must move on to baseline assessment.

Mr. Spearing: Those who read our debates or extracts from them may be puzzled. I cannot find the word "selection" in the Bill, or any implication that the Bill will be used for the selection of pupils into primary schools. The only words in the Bill which suggest that are the reference to
assisting the future planning of their education
and
where the pupils in question transfer to other schools".
Can my hon. Friend tell me the legal basis for the apparent purpose of the Government in giving schools the power to select pupils for entrance to primary schools?

Mr. Jamieson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the thoroughness with which he always tackles such matters. The Minister made it clear during Committee that an early clause of the Bill allowed primary schools to select their pupils. That was admitted by the Secretary of State on Second Reading. It would be interesting if my hon. Friend took up the point with the Minister later in the debate.


Other parts of the Bill are falling apart, and with his great knowledge of such matters, perhaps my hon. Friend has noticed a fundamental flaw in the Bill.
We are pleased that the Government have been persuaded by our arguments on the important matter of baseline assessment, which allows teachers and parents to make an assessment of the progress of individual children, and the value added to their education by the school. We must test not just children's absolute achievement, but the progress that they have made from one stage to the next.
I was delighted to note that in a recent Ofsted report on a school in my constituency that takes some children from your constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker—the John Kitto community college—the Ofsted inspectors took into consideration true added value. They noted that 24 per cent. of the pupils at age 16 passed five or more GCSEs at grades A to C, which is about half the national average, but they commented that, according to the tests that the children had taken at age 11 to predict their performance at 16, only 12 per cent. would pass 5 GCSEs at grades A to C. Ofsted therefore recognised that although the school attained only half the national average in exam results, it has a huge added value for the children who attend it. The report also noted that 60 to 70 pupils per year out of 270 are selected to go to the local grammar school and do not attend the community college. I am pleased that Ofsted is now using a type of baseline assessment to measure the standards that are being value added to schools.
If baseline tests were used as a form of selection, that would be disastrous for two reasons. First, the tests should be used primarily not as summative tests, but as formative tests, to predict the sort of education that a child needs and the progress that he or she will make, and over a number of years to measure the progress that the child has made, and most of all, the effectiveness of the teaching and the education in the school. That is what baseline assessment should be about.
Secondly, parents' confidence in the process could be undermined, if they felt that a baseline test would be used in a selective way to rule their children out of a school, rather than being used by the teacher and the school as a means of assisting children in their education. If a baseline test were used to rule children out, many parents would object to their children taking the test, in case it was used to put their children on the fringes of the school. Using baseline tests for the purpose of selection could have a serious effect on parents' confidence in the system.
When the Minister sums up, perhaps she could answer a further point. If a child entered in the pre-compulsory year sector of a school—the nursery school—could the school use baseline tests at the end of the nursery stage to weed out those children that it did not want to take in the later stages? There is a danger that, used in that way, baseline testing could fragment children's education. Choice would rest with schools, rather than with parents.
Earlier in the debate we heard comments on recent announcements concerning matters such as cadets and the royal yacht Britannia. The Government thought that they had struck a popular vein, but they are profoundly out of touch with public opinion. On selection, and especially selection for primary schools, the Government are way out of touch with parents.

Mr. Pawsey: I again thank the hon. Gentleman for the courtesy that he has shown me this evening. It is out of

character, but it is deeply appreciated none the less. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the poll conducted by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers shows support for selection. The hon. Gentleman is assiduous in these matters and will be aware of the poll. He will know that the majority of parents supported selection. I suggest to him gently that that undermines his entire case. He and his party would deny parents what they want in their children's education.

Mr. Jamieson: The wonderful thing about giving way to the hon. Gentleman is that he puts his foot in his mouth so much that he makes the Opposition case and destroys the Government's arguments. He has done it yet again. The hon. Gentleman misquotes the responses. When parents were asked whether they wanted grammar schools, many said yes. When parents were asked whether they wanted selection, they were not so happy. A very low percentage of parents wanted their children to attend secondary modern schools. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the Government could use some of the funds that have mysteriously flowed to the Conservative party to test their focus groups. They could ask parents, "Do you want your child to attend a secondary modern school?", and I make a modest wager with the hon. Gentleman that less than 5 per cent. of parents would say yes.

Mr. Warren Hawksley: I served on the Shropshire county council education committee in the days when we had selection. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that parents might be so ambitious for their children as to believe that they would be successful and attend grammar schools? That might be why parents responded in the way that the hon. Gentleman claims.

Mr. Jamieson: If the hon. Gentleman had been present earlier, he would have heard the exchange involving the hon. Member for Solihull. Parents do not want their children to fail at school, and parents in that area did not want to return to a selective system because they knew full well that, under that system, four fifths of children fail at age 11. Selection does not have a great resonance for parents.
I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to intervene again. Will he tell us, honestly and frankly, how many parents in his constituency have written or spoken to him or petitioned him saying that they want their local comprehensive school split into a grammar school and a secondary modern school? How many letters of that type has the hon. Gentleman received? How many parents' groups has he met which demand the return of selection in his area so that children may take the 11-plus test?

Mr. Hawksley: That is not an issue in my constituency. The argument in Halesowen and Stourbridge is whether we should have grant-maintained schools. The local branch of the Labour party is doing everything it can to ensure that parents in my constituency are deprived of that opportunity. They are pressurised not to have grant-maintained schools. I believe that the Labour party is applying similar pressure in Dudley.

Mr. Jamieson: I have hit another rich vein, as another Conservative Member makes points for our side. The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley) claims that parents in his area, first, do not want selection and the 11-plus test; and, secondly, despite all the bribes, cannot be enticed to vote for schools to go grant maintained. Both of the Government's policies have failed. I did not intend to mention the Government's failed grant-maintained policy and the fact that just over 1,000 schools have opted out. The hon. Gentleman has confirmed that both of those policies have failed in his constituency not because of local Labour politicians or events in this House, but because perceptive parents who want the best for their children have roundly rejected those ideas.

Mr. Tony Marlow: rose—

Mr. Jamieson: Having said that we had hit a rich vein of failure, I willingly give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Marlow: If the grant-maintained policy has failed, why do "perceptive"—to use the hon. Gentleman's word—Labour Front Benchers move heaven and earth to ensure that their children attend grant-maintained schools?

Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman will have to do a little better than that. Labour Members have no problems with parents sending their children to grant-maintained or any other schools. There is a grant-maintained Catholic boys school in my constituency. If parents who have profound and deeply held views about a particular religion—in this case, it is the Catholic Church—and who believe in single-sex education were to ask me which school they should send their children to, I would tell them to send their children to the school of their choice, whether or not it is grant maintained. I am surprised not that the hon. Gentleman should enter the argument—as so many of his hon. Friends have done—by referring to hon. Members' children, but that his Front-Bench colleagues should do so also.

Mr. Don Foster: If the hon. Gentleman seeks evidence that grant-maintained status has failed, he need look no further than the fact that only 0.5 per cent. of eligible schools bothered to seek grant-maintained status in the past 12 months. Does that not illustrate that the parents and governors of eligible schools know that it is a failed policy?

Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In many areas—such as Cornwall—there are no grant-maintained schools and there have been scarcely any ballots. There is no enthusiasm among parents to hold such ballots, even though no pressure is applied. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) will know that the pressure on schools is not to go grant maintained or selective but to improve standards. Parents are seeing their children in larger classes, they see a lack of resources and they see depressed and demoralised teachers. Those are the issues that concern parents, and parents will bear them in mind when they cast their votes in the general election. They will make a genuine assessment of where the parties stand on those issues.
8.45 pm
The Prime Minister said that he wanted to see a grammar school in every town. He has since backed away from that statement, but I assure him that parents do not want to see a grammar school in every town—and they certainly do not want to see a grammar primary school in every town. They know that selection is a means of denying their children the school of their choice. Parents know that they will not be able to choose a school for their children. I urge hon. Members to join us in the Lobby tonight in voting for a new clause that is not just profound common sense but is in touch with the wishes of parents.

Mr. Don Foster: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you advise the House whether it is appropriate for us to consider any amendments to the Bill, given that it appears to be flawed? I draw your attention to clause 6(2)(a), in which direct reference is made to "section 259A". You will be aware that that proposed new section was the subject of the new clause that the Government sought to insert. We are interested to know how it is possible to bring a Bill to the House that refers to a proposed new section whose insertion the House has not approved.

Madam Deputy Speaker: As I understand it, it is open to the Government to make any necessary changes—either at a later stage here or possibly elsewhere.

Mr. Foster: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for your guidance. My point is that I fail to understand how the Government can bring to the House a Bill that refers to a proposed new section that the House has not agreed should be inserted in the Bill. New clause 3, which we debated earlier, attempted to insert proposed new section 259A. The legislation before us refers to that proposed new section, but the House has not approved it.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that my point must remain the same.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As we are near an election, I suppose that party bashing is the flavour of the month. However, this evening I hope to persuade hon. Members to vote against the new clause and to persuade the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) that he is wholly wrong. I contend that the Labour party is supporting proposals that damage the working class.
Anyone who is familiar with grammar schools and the selection system will be aware that, in boroughs and towns that do not have the grammar school escape route, people are educated—as the hon. Gentleman must know—according to class segregation. If he doubts that, he should look at the figures that were published in the Evening Standard tonight. The schools that are low achievers when it comes to the teaching of reading and writing are not in Labour constituencies, or Tory constituencies—it is a class issue. Hon. Members must know that, if there is no grammar school system, people are educated according to where they live.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I ask the hon. Gentleman a simple question: if we accept his prognosis that the way to


demolish class barriers is to take 20 per cent. of our young people, irrespective of their social class, and hive them off through selective education into one type of school, what does that offer the other 80 per cent., who by definition will be denied access to that type of school?

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am not questioning the integrity of Opposition Members. I am pleading with them to understand the option. Let us consider achievement. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), the Opposition spokesman, knows the best part of Britain for A-level examinations. Is it the south-east of England, where there is much wealth and large houses? Is it the north-east of England? The place that is streets ahead of everywhere else in the United Kingdom is a place called Northern Ireland, where there is massive poverty. That is accompanied by considerable unemployment and a great deal of misery.
Why should Northern Ireland do so well? Whether a child is in a Catholic or non-Catholic school, there is a basic 25 per cent. selection for grammar schools. If Opposition Members doubt that, let them see what happens in Northern Ireland.
In my constituency, there is a great deal of unemployment. That is accompanied by much poverty, sadness and unhappiness. Why is it, however, that A-level and GCSE examination results in Southend-on-Sea are streets ahead of the average for Essex, which is a prosperous county and streets ahead of the average for the nation? The answer is that Southend has a system of 25 per cent. selection, which means that one child in four goes to one of four large grammar schools. Opposition Members may not like that, but it happens to be true.

Mr. Spearing: I do not dispute the hon. Gentleman's figures, but surely he faces a logical dilemma. An equal and perhaps even a greater explanation of what I might call the Southend phenomenon is the quality, dedication and resources that are available to the schools that take the 75 per cent. Is not that just as likely an explanation as the process of selection, which the hon. Gentleman advances?

Sir Teddy Taylor: I should like to think that achievement in Southend reflects the Government's kindness in the allocation of finance, but that is not the case. There is no sign that it is. Perhaps Opposition Members will reflect on my own case. I am now an old man; I have been in this place for 33 years. I came from what was loosely described as a poor home in Glasgow. I managed, through a test, to get into a school called the Glasgow high school for boys. I went there along with other kids. That school was closed by the Labour council. The council scrapped it.
What happened then? The Glasgow high school for boys became a private school. It is now called the Glasgow high school. I shall speak at one of its dinners in a few weeks' time. Unless one can afford a fortune in fees, a child cannot go there.
The children of wealthy Members—the up-market group of society—have no problems. Their parents can send the kids to a fee-paying school. But what about able kids with caring parents who live in working-class areas,

perhaps on income support? Perhaps they have no money at all. Opposition Members must think about the situation in cities where there is no selection. There are no grammar schools. We all know that such people will do all that they can to move into "nice" areas.
If Opposition Members doubt that, let them reflect on Glasgow, and the constituency that I used to represent. There was a massive housing scheme called Castlemilk. Allegedly, it was the largest council scheme in Europe. A short distance from that scheme was a small owner-occupied area, part of which was called King's Park, where there were modest but quite expensive small properties. There were many decent and honourable people in Castlemilk. If their kids in secondary schools obtained any sort of qualification—that is, any GCSE or any O-level, as the examination was then—they were doing well. Just down the road, about a mile away in King's Park, if a kid did not get to university, he was not doing well. That is tragic. It is appalling.

Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman is saying that some children have an escape route that enables them to get into a grammar school. It is a curious argument. Does it not mean that children who are poor and go to a secondary modern school face double jeopardy?

Sir Teddy Taylor: That is wrong.
If a quarter of the kids are selected, are the three quarters worse off than they would be otherwise? The answer is no. It is plain that someone must be top of the class. Someone has to be a prefect. Someone has to be an achiever. If 25 per cent. of children are removed, there is not the slightest proof or sign that the remaining children are thereby worse off.
I have tried desperately hard not to become involved in party politics, much of which is sick. Much of the propaganda that is being presented makes me almost ill. Hon. Members are well aware of their friends and supporters and they know of people who are deliberately conspiring to move their kids away from the areas in which they live to other areas where they think that there are nicer or higher-achieving schools. I am sure that that applies to both parties. I am sure that it even applies to Liberal Democrats, nice people though they are.

Ms Hodge: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we all wish to have the highest standards for all our children in all our schools, and that the real and proper way forward is not to provide only some good schools that offer opportunities for a few children? Does he agree instead that we should focus our attention on raising standards in all our schools, so that children can go to their neighbourhood school and receive a high-quality education? Does he further agree that they should not have to move house or face a system whereby three quarters of children are relegated to the dustbin in secondary modern schools?

Sir Teddy Taylor: To refer to secondary modern schools as dustbins is an insult. I should like to take the hon. Lady to what she would describe as dustbins. There is no sense in what she says. Basically, she is talking of high-achieving schools. I could take her to them.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Bath


(Mr. Foster), who leads this evening for the Liberal Democrats, took the trouble to go all the way to Lancaster to attend school? He is the only Liberal we have turned out. Does my hon. Friend agree that super, high-achieving schools set an example to other schools and give them something to aim at? That is certainly the position in the area that I represent.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I hope that that would be the case. What is being said is what we should all love to see. The hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) knows, however, that it cannot and does not happen. When we are in opposition, we sometimes feel that problems will fade away and disappear with the election of a new Government. That is codswallop. I am sure that there are many honourable and sincere members of the Labour party who realise that the problems that we are discussing cannot be resolved by the election of a new Government.
Let us take a town where there are 50,000 people and one school. The social mix would be achieved there, which is good. In a large borough or town, however, it is not possible to get a good social mix in schools, and it does not happen. We all know that and it is something that we must face.

Mr. Kilfoyle: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Prime Minister that, for the top 20 per cent., an education is on offer in this country that matches anything in the world? Does he further agree that the challenge, in terms of economic prosperity and social cohesion, is to deal properly with the other 80 per cent.? If that is so, how will grammar schools assist those children to make their mark in life?

Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman should consider the position in Southend and in Northern Ireland. All kids achieve better when there is a grammar school input. I also appeal to him to go to areas such as Tower Hamlets—I do not say this contemptuously—which has been run on the agreeable principles of socialism for years, and where achievement is a national scandal. Of course it would be wonderful to have high achievement in such places, but the fact is that we do not and we cannot. It is tragic and a disaster. If the hon. Gentleman doubts that, he should look at the figures that have just been published on the standards of reading and writing for seven-year-olds. What is happening in those boroughs is tragic.

9 pm

Mr. Hawksley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the language of dustbins to describe education for 80 per cent. of children is a disgrace? It is the assumption that those schools will be failures that is the problem. There is no reason why they cannot be good schools. We used to have such schools in Shropshire.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I wish that Labour Members would be really interested in this subject. They should come to Southend and see the great achievements of our comprehensive schools—which are in the area where I live—such as Shoeburyness county high school and Cecil Jones high school.

Mrs. Gillan: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way in a powerful and moving speech. Has he had a chance to

look at the 1996 performance tables? They show that 15-year-olds in LEA areas with selective schools achieve a higher proportion of five or more GCSEs at grades A to C. Those areas achieve 44.8 per cent., and LEAs without selective schools achieve 40.4 per cent. Does that add to his argument?

Sir Teddy Taylor: It does add to the argument. When I started out in politics—I mean this in all sincerity—I genuinely found that Labour people tended to be nicer, more meaningful people who were committed to a principle. By comparison, people from other parties did not have that commitment. That applied to education and housing. The tragedy is that those good people in Glasgow introduced policies which, although well intentioned, were damaging to the working class.

Ms Estelle Morris: How does the hon. Gentleman explain the fact that, since the introduction of comprehensive schools, the number of children achieving five or more passes at GCSE with good grades has gone up from 15 per cent. to more than 40 per cent.? Does he think that that is because of a lowering in the standards of examinations? Does he not realise that that is a sign of real improvement in the standards of so many children who have been educated in the comprehensive system?

Sir Teddy Taylor: I accept that there has been a gradual rise in overall standards, but I hope that the hon. Lady will examine areas' relative performance, and think about the position of parents and children in some of the worst parts of our cities. This is not a problem for small towns: it is a problem for our cities, and it will not go away. We are denying people opportunities.
In Southend, we have four grammar schools. Some kids, such as those who live in Shoeburyness, have a long bus journey to school. The Lib-Lab group in the county council—some of whom are my best friends—had a plan to stop free transport for grammar school children. People in Shoeburyness on lower incomes and on income support can no longer send their children to those schools, whereas people who live in big houses find it easier to do so. That is wrong, and terribly unfair.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and it seems to me that he is generalising from specific situations. I was brought up in a coal-mining valley and was the youngest of 12 children. I went to a grammar school, but my older siblings were not able to do so because my parents could not afford it. The standards in the grammar school were such that many people went on to Oxford and Cambridge, became highly qualified and moved up in the professions.
Many years later, in the same community, with the same people and with the same dedication to education, the comprehensive schools send the same number of children, or even more, to Oxford and Cambridge. I venture to suggest that it is not the type of school or its structure that counts, but parental background, the willingness of people to get involved and the dedication of teachers. If financial support and help is provided, kids will achieve, whatever the system.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am encouraged by what the hon. Gentleman said about the schools in his constituency. It is lucky to have him as its Member of Parliament, and


I hope that the children will continue to prosper in that way. He described a success story, but I hope that he will consider the deprived areas of Manchester, Birmingham and London, where standards of attainment are appalling, and where children do not have an opportunity to escape.
If people are in an up-market group, their children can escape, because they can pay for transport to take their children outside the area and thus take advantage of the choices that the Government have provided. But think of the people who simply cannot escape.
My kids went to council schools in Southend-on-Sea. They were lucky: they went on to grammar schools. They had the advantage of a social mix. It should be remembered that the secondary schools chosen by those living in up-market areas do not have such a social mix. One of the greatest tragedies that I encountered in Glasgow was the existence of what could almost be called ghettos in areas with council housing. That is an appalling situation. People cannot escape from such ghettos, either because of council housing—which, sadly, prevents them from escaping—or because of the lack of educational ability of some kind, in regard to which society is desperately unfair. People may wonder why things are going wrong in so many areas; it is because, unfortunately, a large and increasing number of people are imprisoned in such ghettos, and we must fight that.
I have spoken for far too long, and I apologise, but Labour Members should think of the children in those ghetto areas. Are we offering them any hope? Labour Members may say, "We will spend a little more, and will organise some special inquiry." The plain fact is, however, that they know that—because of housing policy and the ghettos to which I have referred—they will achieve nothing unless they can give such people some kind of hope. I suggest that giving some of those children the opportunity to go to grammar school gives them hope.

Mr. Don Foster: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I know that he is anxious to finish his speech, to which I have listened with considerable interest.
The hon. Gentleman clearly cares passionately about this issue, but I am confused about one point. He has referred to "inner-city ghetto areas" from which the majority of children are not able to move to the leafy suburbs and the so-called better schools. How can the removal of the 25 per cent. most able pupils from a school in a ghetto area benefit the remaining 75 per cent.? I simply do not see how the 75 per cent. can benefit.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am sorry that I have spoken for so long. Perhaps I should not have given way, but I believe that we should think about this important issue.
Such action can help enormously. There is no hope for anyone if everyone is imprisoned in a school that is in a ghetto. If 25 per cent., 10 per cent. or even 5 per cent. of kids can escape, entirely new circumstances are created: at least some will be able to escape to grammar

schools. A stable society is one where there is opportunity; without opportunity, the situation is appalling.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) seems to think that he is an expert. I am sure that he is, because he wears glasses and looks very wise. If he knows a family living in Tower Hamlets, what will he say to that family? Will he say, "We are going to give you 10 per cent. more money, and we shall try to give you an extra teacher"? He must know that, unless he can provide some of those people with the opportunity of escape, they will continue to have a ghetto mentality.
I care about these things, because I came from a poor home and went to a school in which many people were in the position that I have described. As I said, when I started out in politics, Labour Members seem to care about things and believe in them, but, tragically, some of the things in which they believe are extremely stupid and damaging for the working class. The working class suffers, and no one gains.
I am sorry that I have spoken for so long, but I hope that I have persuaded one or two hon. Members to think again, and to realise that what they propose is wrong—that it is bad for the working class, and bad for overall achievement.

Ms Hodge: I hope that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) will sit through my speech. We listened to his, which was delivered with passion and, I think, sincerity, and I trust that he will listen to Opposition arguments against selection.
I believe that there is a purpose behind tonight's debate which unites the political parties. We all want to raise educational standards for the children of today, who will become the community and the work force of tomorrow; and we all want to provide opportunity. Where we divide is on the steps that we think are most appropriate to achieve that objective. That is where I part from the hon. Member for Southend, East, but I hope that he will listen to my argument.
The Government believe that the route to raising standards is through selection. That is where we fundamentally disagree. We are not driven by good intentions alone. We are driven by pragmatic good sense; the Government's approach is driven by dogma and ideology. Because it is so driven, it will fail, even to provide opportunity for more children.
The Bill misses another opportunity to raise educational standards. I feel sorry for the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. Her professional background is that of a teacher. She spent a large part of her professional working life promoting comprehensive education and closing grammar schools. When she was a member of Norfolk county council, nine grammar schools were closed—the rest of the grammar schools in Norfolk—and she played an active role in the campaign to close the King Edward VII grammar school there. When she became Secretary of State, she spoke to local teachers at a meeting of the National Union of Teachers. When teachers asked her about selection, she said that nothing would change while she was in charge.
I do not believe that the Secretary of State ever wanted or meant to change the Government's stance on selection. It was forced on her by the Prime Minister. I feel sorry for her, because when she reflects on her period of office


as Secretary of State, in a few weeks from now we hope, she will think that she was responsible for introducing nursery vouchers, which have been a complete flop, for bringing back selection—grammar schools—and for introducing selection at the age of five. There is not a lot of which she can be proud in her old age.
The education issue for Britain is not, as the hon. Member for Southend, East suggested, our failure to achieve high standards for the best pupils; the issue was set out not only by Labour Members, but by members of a Conservative education authority from which the Government Front Bench team sought to distance itself. We had more sense from the authority in its submissions to the Government on both the White Paper and the Bill than we have had from all Ministers during debates in Committee. The authority said:
England's long-standing problem is the long tale of under-achievement with the less able.
We need to pose the question: will selection at 11, or indeed at five, help us to raise standards, not for those who succeed anyway, but for all children, including those working-class children about whom the hon. Member for Southend, East feels so passionately?

Mr. Win Griffiths: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact—this must be something of a paradox in the light of what the Government seem to want to do—that it was their own Prime Minister who, a year or two ago, said that we did very well by more able pupils, but that we were failing 80 per cent. of those who attended schools? That is what we must tackle, not the question of the able.

Ms Hodge: I completely agree. I say to the hon. Member for Southend, East that my children are in inner-city comprehensive schools and are achieving well. They would whatever the structure and irrespective of whether there was selection. When we talk about introducing selection, I remain primarily concerned not for them, because their background and my support as a parent more readily ensures their future, but for precisely those children for whom the hon. Member for Southend, East has expressed concern. Will selection help to deal with that long tale of under-achievement that is often associated with class? No; nor will it increase parental choice, improve schools or raise standards. We know that from information in the league tables that are produced by the Government from GCSE results. I hope that Conservative Members will listen carefully to this. We must learn from those league tables about the impact of selection at 11 so that we may understand what could happen if we introduced selection, as proposed, at the age of five.
Let us consider the impact of grammar schools on children in one locality to assess how their revival would affect the nation's children. Unfortunately, grammar schools still exist in some areas, enabling us to make a proper informed analysis based on the facts. I gave an example in Committee and shall do so again. The counties of Kent and Hampshire are large and have many secondary schools. Kent has 149 secondary schools and Hampshire has 122. The socio-economic profiles of the two counties are similar.
9.15 pm
The hon. Member for Southend, East shakes his head, but I direct him to the statistics in the Library which show that I am correct. Both counties offer children about the same access to pre-school education, which is often taken as an important ingredient when considering later performance. Hampshire organises its secondary education through comprehensives while Kent has a mixture of grammar schools and schools which inevitably become secondary modern as the brightest children are creamed off along what the hon. Member for Southend, East described as an escape route to grammar schools.
As the Minister has said, both counties performed fairly well in the league tables—as they should, given their socio-economic intake—but the difference in outcome between the two counties is stark. Hampshire, with its comprehensive schools, only eight schools had 25 per cent. or fewer pupils gaining five GCSEs at grades A to C, taking that as the level below which we would not want to drop. In Kent, which has a mixture of grammar and secondary modern schools, 49 schools had 25 per cent. or fewer pupils gaining five GCSEs at grades A to C. The children come from similar backgrounds and the areas are similar, but in Kent a third of the schools perform badly while in Hampshire only 6.5 per cent. of the schools have a poor outcome. That cannot be explained by saying that Kent children are less able, nor can it be said that the teachers are less committed or competent. The only difference between the two counties is that Kent has grammar schools while Hampshire does not.
The story told by the league tables goes on. Six schools in Kent, two of which, interestingly enough, are grant maintained, have worse results than the Ridings school. Seven schools produce worse results than the worst school in Hackney, and 11 have results that are worse than the worst school in Islington. In 25 schools, the results are worse than the worst school in my constituency of Barking. The Government's own league tables show that selective education not only fails to improve standards, but may damage overall standards.

Mrs. Gillan: Is the hon. Lady able to state the percentages of statemented children or those requiring special educational needs in those schools?

Ms Hodge: During the Bill's Committee stage, the Minister of State quite properly said that children's backgrounds should not be relevant to their results at 16. Our goal should be for all children, whatever their background, to achieve certain levels. I agree with the Minister of State that we should not expect children from a particular background, who start with particular skills and qualifications, to achieve better results than others. We want all our children to achieve.
The hon. Member for Southend, East needs to appreciate that the character of one school will affect the character of other schools in an area. Very able pupils do well in both of the counties that I mentioned, but excluded students suffer where grammar schools exist. The impact of creaming off a few children to a few schools has an enormous impact on other schools.
We are not driven by dogma, we are driven by the facts provided by the Government. We ignore those facts at our peril. Selection closes doors. It does not open them, as


Conservative Members have said in this debate. Selection entrenches failure, and it does not encourage success. Selection lessens opportunity; it does not enhance it.

Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend realise that many people who have taught in both grammar and comprehensive schools are acutely aware that, particularly in the 1950s and 1960s, bad grammar schools concentrated only on the notionally top third of pupils and that the remaining pupils suffered and were effectively sacrificed? In comprehensive schools, however, staff attempt to fit the education that they can provide to all the needs of all the pupils. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that the Prime Minister would agree with that analysis and description.

Ms Hodge: The Prime Minister might indeed agree with that analysis. My hon. Friend raises another important issue, which is that within schools people are assessed as failures or successes. Even within grammar schools—as those of us who attended them know—children at the bottom are written off. Let us think about that practice, because that is what new clause 9 is about. Let us think about what we would be doing to children at five if we started to classify them as failures because they did not pass a test to get them into the school of their choice. Is that a sensible way in which to make progress? Can we really select children at five according to their ability? Are we really going to write off little children at the very start of their statutory school career because they have failed to pass an initial test?

Mr. Gunnell: Does my hon. Friend agree that we will be writing off children under the age of five years if we do not exclude baseline assessment—which is the purpose of the new clause? Unless we exclude baseline assessments, we will be writing off children when they are in nursery school, and a selection process will be introduced almost as children first encounter the educational system. The test is meant to be diagnostic and to indicate children's potential, perhaps their aptitude and something about them; it should certainly not be used to penalise them in later life. The new clause has been designed to remove that penalty.

Ms Hodge: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, because I had planned to deal with just that point. As hon. Members may or may not know, I have taken a particular interest in early years education and in the development of the nursery voucher scheme. I have also been extremely critical of the desirable outcomes that were set as standards—which have become a curriculum, despite the original intention—and which children are expected to achieve by the time they finish their education under the voucher scheme.
Two school settings failed to meet the criteria for the pilot stage of the nursery voucher scheme. One was a Rudolf Steiner school. Rudolf Steiner schools do not teach words or mathematical concepts, and practise the philosophy that it is wrong to teach children numeracy or literacy skills before the age of six. I do not agree with that view, but those schools are perfectly entitled to it. Children who attend Rudolf Steiner schools often perform as well as other children later on.
The children at the Rudolf Steiner school failed to produce the desirable outcome that the Government had set as a mechanism for assessing whether schools should be included in the nursery voucher scheme, so those children were deemed to have failed. That is absurd. In no way could that test judge whether the children had potential, were bright or were able to cope with a sophisticated curriculum and achieve better results than children from elsewhere, and it demonstrates the absurdity of any test at five to start selecting children and placing them in a selective primary grammar school. Let us be clear: that is what the Government mean when they talk about selection.
The Government have been eager to proclaim that all their reforms extend choice. Opposition Members have consistently said that the choice is for the school and not for the child. I remind the House of one fact that reinforces our thesis that the Government's reforms provide limited choice—the increased number of appeals. In 1989–90, there were 21,000 appeals by parents against the places that their children were given. By 1994–95, the figure had more than doubled to 54,400 because fewer parents were getting the choice that they wanted.
Standards in education are a central concern of all politicians and employers; they are an obsession for most of us who are parents of school-age children. We all worry. The notion that our child might gain access to better opportunities in a school that selects may seem superficially attractive, but never has an education debate been based on so much political prejudice and so little objective evidence.
Labour is right to focus on standards. We cannot run away from the challenge, and we cannot admit defeat before we have tried. Britain is wrong to have neglected standards for so long. We all want comprehensive primary and secondary schools that are so good that no parent would deny their child the privilege of attending them. The answer does not lie in bringing back selection, but in a single-minded determination to raise standards in all our schools for all our children.

Mr. Spearing: Most teachers, whatever their political persuasion, would agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) has just said, but I should like briefly to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
All hon. Members, whatever their political persuasion or their views on a particular matter, respect the hon. Gentleman for a variety of personal reasons, but his better nature was forgotten, perhaps unconsciously, in the thesis of his speech. The hon. Gentleman, perhaps from personal experience or from observing certain parts of the country—not Tower Hamlets, to which I shall refer in a minute—spoke about escape. He justified the existence of a system of selection as the means of escape, implying that without it there would be no escape—prisoners would be in chains; families would be in chains. His imagery gave away the misapprehension from which he suffers.
Despite his political viewpoint, I think that the hon. Gentleman agrees that we do not want social prisons—we do not want ghettos or areas of deprivation. We want to stop the spread of such areas and, if possible, to eliminate them. What about those who do not escape the prison? He might look to the legislation and philosophy of his party. Unfortunately, most of the legislation of the past


13 years—which he, alas, has supported—has increased the size of the social enclaves, or prisons, that he described and made it much more difficult for anybody to operate in them, thereby making the problem worse. His solution was to enable some people to escape from a predicament in which they should not be in the first place.
9.30 pm
I represent a constituency adjacent to the London borough of Tower Hamlets. I openly invite the hon. Gentleman to come to any of the secondary comprehensive schools in my constituency, just a mile or two from Tower Hamlets. We have multi-cultural education of a high standard—although no doubt the buildings could be better. I invite him to come to any of the four schools in my constituency, because I think that he would then revise the speech that he has just made.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman and I am sure that his local schools are very good. Does he not think that it makes a difference to the morale of a whole street if one or two children are attending a grammar school? People have a chance to say, "Look, there is one of the kids along the road who has broken out. My kid could do the same."

Mr. Spearing: The philosophy is not one of breaking out from an enclosed prison, but of making use of the facilities that the teachers and the community, as well as the borough council, if it is allowed, make available. The hon. Gentleman's assumption may have been true 10, 20 or 30 years ago, particularly in east London, but that situation is now much diminished—I believe that it has largely disappeared.
We have a rather strange debate. I should like to refer to the precise wording of the Bill. I see that the Under-Secretary has departed. I inform the Minister of State, who has now arrived—I am pleased to see that the Secretary of State herself has also arrived at this interesting stage of the debate—that at the beginning of this important debate on selection the Under-Secretary declined to give the Government point of view in resisting the new clause. The new clause negates and limits the purposes of the clauses that relate to the issues that we are considering.
The explanatory memorandum of the Bill as published for Second Reading—not the Bill as we now have it—said:
Clauses 32 to 35 provide for the introduction of compulsory baseline assessment of children at primary schools. That assessment is to be carried out in accordance with an accredited baseline assessment scheme.
Anybody reading that—I think that I must include myself—thought, "Oh. This is a tightening up of what we have already got about assessment of pupils and how they are getting on and centralising it to a much greater degree." The words "selection" and "admission" do not appear in the alleged explanatory and financial memorandum.
I suggest, therefore, that the absence of those words and the inclusion of what the Secretary of State was alleged to have said on Second Reading about selection for entry to primary school by assessment show that the Government were being not just economical with the truth in the explanatory memorandum but downright misleading. I am

sorry that the Secretary of State is doing exactly what the former right hon. Member for Finchley used to do. When a good point was being made by an Opposition Member, she engaged herself in conversation and pretended not to listen. I am sorry that the Secretary of State is displaying uncustomary discourtesy on this point. Perhaps she will read our debate in Hansard; I commend that point to her.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: My hon. Friend might as well talk to a rice pudding.

Mr. Spearing: I am not sure about a rice pudding; the Bill is certainly not very wholesome.
I now refer to clause 31 and I may get some enlightenment from the Secretary of State as I quote it. I would be glad if she intervened on this point. Clause 31 says:
baseline assessment scheme' means a scheme designed to enable pupils at a maintained primary school to be assessed for the purpose of assisting the future planning of their education".
As my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) said earlier, the scheme appears to be diagnostic. It is a means, albeit compulsory, whereby the needs of the pupil will be assessed
for the purpose of assisting the future planning of their education".
Any decent school and any decent education system does that all the time. Indeed, it is one of the primary jobs of a teacher to assess the needs of pupils.
We then come to the most extraordinary part of clause 31. As the Secretary of State has, unfortunately, departed, I hope that the Minister of State will stand in for her and answer my question. Clause 31 refers to
the future planning of their education and the measurement of their future educational achievements".
That phrase is extraordinary. The Bill refers to children's future achievements.
The word "achievements" may include GCSEs or other examinations; the achievements may be non-examinable, but some non-examinable achievements are important. As an ex-teacher, I used to say to people, "What does the O-level say? What does the GCSE say? It says that you are good at passing O-levels or GCSEs, but it does not tell you very much more."

Mrs. Gillan: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to read the report of the Bill's Committee stage. I draw his attention especially to column 554, where the use of the word "future" was discussed at some length as a result of an amendment moved by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge). I hope that that will assist the hon. Gentleman in his search for the meaning of the word "future".

Mr. Spearing: Alas, it does not. The Committee debate assists me in understanding the illogicality and educational naivety of the Conservative party. It is clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Barking—she may wish to contribute to this brief and useful exchange—tabled an amendment to try to clarify the extraordinary statement about the measurement of future educational achievements. Perhaps the Minister means that the scheme may assist in predicting future educational achievements, but the Bill does not use the word "predict"; it uses the word "measurement". Measurement can refer only to what exists. I suggest to the Minister that


the wording of the clause is nonsense. It cannot be sustained in fact or in educational criteria. What we have here is the basis of provision for entry to primary school by selection, and we had not heard very much on that subject until tonight. Unless one had heard the speeches tonight or the debate in Committee, one would not be able to take that meaning from reading the Bill, because the provisions of the Bill are gobbledegook. They do not make sense educationally or practically and I suggest to the Under-Secretary that she is starting something that is completely wrong.
I shall conclude on one fundamental point of educational philosophy with which I am sure the Under-Secretary, and any teacher who happens to be in the House, will agree. Primary schools have always been comprehensive schools that meet mainstream educational need for the whole local area. If the Under-Secretary does what she has said she will do, each primary school will be turned into a selective school—a competitive racetrack for the meritocratic stakes. That is not the purpose of education and it should not be included in the Bill.

Mr. Gunnell: I shall comment briefly. Government amendment No. 65 is clearly about selection for primary schools. In Committee, I asked the Minister of State whether he could name a reputable educational organisation or school that had told the Department that it wanted selection in primary schools. He could not do so. He said:
In a sense, it does not matter how many schools have asked for the provision; we are giving them the opportunity, if they want to take it. Perhaps by giving them that opportunity, we may stimulate more interest—I do not know."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 26 November 1996; c. 102.]
He implied that there was not much interest in the issue any way.
The Minister was unable to name anyone, apart from members of the Conservative party, who had decided that selection in primary schools would aid them in the future. He could not name anybody who had requested it—certainly not anyone with an educational reputation. We ask, therefore, why the Government, having set out their stall on parental choice, are so anxious to remove parental choice of primary schools.
The reasons why people choose primary schools are different from the reasons why they want a say and a choice in secondary schools. Fundamentally, parents choose a primary school because of its location in relation to their homes. The reasons are geographical; proximity to their homes is important. I handled an appeal for parents whose choice of school was dictated by their responsibilities as parents of their other children and as working parents. Selection of primary schools is usually made on that basis.
It was not until the debate in Committee that we realised that the Government intended to use baseline assessment for selection. It is clear that they are trying to use baseline assessment for purposes for which it was not designed. They are trying to use it as a basis for diagnosing achievement or aptitude.
The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who sincerely expressed his anxiety that children from what he called a working-class ghetto should get on and

get out, felt that such a selection system would help them. It would have absolutely the opposite effect because it would reduce the age at which a child was selected and make it almost certain that those who, to use his word, were ghettoised would not pass—since selection means pass in this instance—or be selected. If the background of such children is restricted, as he suggests, it is very unlikely that they will be selected.
I am greatly concerned about how selection will work. The most likely outcome is that parental influence will have a rapid effect on selection. Primary school children will be selected on the basis of the pressure that their parents are able to bring to bear.
I recognise that there is no time for further debate of the issue, but I hope that the Minister will cite some reputable organisation or school, not simply the Conservative party, from which pressure has come for selection at primary level. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) clearly and most elegantly described why selection is to the disadvantage of our children. Such selection is fundamentally wrong. If the Government are seriously proposing it as a way forward, it will be disastrous for our children.

Mrs. Gillan: We have had an extremely long debate on this group of amendments, which I think has generated more heat than light. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley), for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), all of whom made timely and pertinent interventions. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) who, as I think Members on both sides of the House would agree, made an extremely passionate speech based on his own experience.
The group of amendments includes a Government amendment. In Committee, I undertook to table an amendment to ensure that it is the head teacher who selects the baseline assessment scheme to be used by the school. Amendment No. 65 does that. I must emphasise that there is agreement with our prime aim to ensure that every school has access to and uses a baseline assessment scheme that meets the criteria of the proposed national framework.
Amendment No. 65 acknowledges that the decision on which baseline assessment scheme to select is a matter of professional expertise and views on the content and style of schemes likely to be available and appropriate for the school. Such expertise lies with the head teacher, who is thus best placed to judge which scheme will be most suitable.
The Government however recognise how helpful consultation can be when formulating a decision—hence the requirement for the head teacher to consult the governing body when considering which scheme to select. The governing body's role is formally to adopt the scheme selected by the head teacher. That is consistent with the existing division of responsibilities between the governing body and the head teacher on school-level policy decisions.
Amendment No. 65 also provides for the rare occasion when a head teacher is unable to select a scheme, perhaps because of illness. It adds a contingent provision for the governing body to carry out the duty if the head teacher is unable to select a scheme within a reasonable time.
The amendment puts back—with the agreement, I know, of Opposition Members—the requirement for schools maintained by a local education authority to consider the scheme selected by their authority before deciding which scheme to select for their own purposes. This recognises that LEAs have a role to play here, and that primary schools do look to their LEAs for advice. It reflects what I am sure will happen in practice, but it does no harm to provide for it on the statute book.
Turning to other matters, I strongly resist new clause 9 and amendments Nos. 50 and 51. We have designed baseline assessment to inform teachers about what children can do on entry to school. That information will enable teachers to match work to children's needs and abilities and, over time, will enable value added to be measured.
There has never been any intention that the information derived from baseline assessment could be used for selection purposes. The Bill provides explicitly that the assessment will take place after children have been enrolled at school. If a pupil then transfers to another school, his baseline assessment details will be transferred to the new school. However, that will not happen until after it is known to which school the pupil has transferred. Therefore, it will be impossible for schools to select—or deselect—pupils on the basis of baseline assessment.
There are a variety of uses to which information taken from the assessments might be put—I have already mentioned the example of measuring value added. Schools might want to use the information to target resources and, of course, it will indicate where further assessment of special educational needs might be required—an issue that was discussed in Committee. The professional use by teachers of baseline assessment information is not something that we should presume to prescribe or inhibit.

Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Lady said that baseline assessment was not to be used by primary schools for selection, so why does she not accept the amendment?

Mrs. Gillan: I do not consider that it is necessary to put that on the face of the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman continues to listen to what I have to say, he will deduce my reasons for that.
The idea that statutory baseline assessment could be used for selection purposes is a red herring. The important need now is not to create confusion among teachers or parents. I can only hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) now sees fit to withdraw new clause 9 and that she does not press the associated amendments Nos. 50 and 51.
Much has been made in the debate of the issue of primary selection. At present, the regime governing selective admissions is exactly the same for primary schools as it is for secondary schools. Admission authorities would have to publish statutory proposals if the proportion of pupils they wanted to admit by selection would amount to a significant change in character of the school. In the opinion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, selecting up to 15 per cent. of a school's intake, whether the school is primary or secondary, does not constitute a significant change of character.
The Bill sets out a new statutory baseline of 20 per cent. for selective admissions. We believe that that should apply to primary as well as to secondary schools, but we

do not believe that many primary schools will wish to select pupils by general ability. However, a few might want to select by aptitude for a particular subject, such as music. In any case, we believe that primary schools should have the option of selecting a proportion of their pupils without central approval, as they have now, and that the lowest of the new thresholds should therefore apply to them. That is what the Bill gives them.
It will continue to be for admission authorities to determine the method that they use to assess ability or aptitude. We do not intend to tie admission authorities' hands in that respect. Therefore, if an admission authority decided to use the statutory baseline assessment materials being produced by SCAA or assessments from accredited baseline assessment schemes for an earlier pre-entry assessment, there is nothing to prevent the authority from doing so.
I repeat: there has never been any intention that the information derived from statutory baseline assessment could be used for selection purposes. Statutory baseline assessment will take place after children have been enrolled at school.
Tonight, in debating these amendments again, we have heard the Opposition parties stand fair and square against selection; against choices for parents. Where will they stop? Will they abolish selection by religious commitment? What about selection by home-school agreement or selection by mortgage? Parents are prepared to pay a lot of money to live in the catchment areas of good schools. Would the Opposition prevent people from choosing where to live?
I reject all the arguments that have been made by the Opposition tonight. I commend Government amendment No. 65 and reject new clause 9.

Ms Estelle Morris: What a mess. One of the prime parts of the Bill before us is to extend primary selection, and the Under-Secretary of State has just said that she does not believe that anyone would use it anyway. I should have thought that, in the dying days of a Government, the Minister could have used legislative time to tackle some of the problems that confront primary school children and primary schools instead of passing a measure that, by her own admission, she does not believe that schools welcome, need or will want to use.
What a mess on baseline assessment. The only reason that the Opposition were forced to table amendments and new clauses today was that the Minister of State, the hon. Member for—

Mr. Forth: Mid-Worcestershire.

Ms Morris: The hon. Member for—at the moment—Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) was engaged in an exchange in Committee in which he made it quite clear that
the concept and practice of baseline assessment is now widely agreed as being achievable, practical and desirable. To the extent that this is so … a school should be able to make an assessment of a child, even at the age of five."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D. 26 November 1996; c. 95–96.]
That was in the context of my asking him whether he would say that under no circumstances would baseline investment be used as a means of allowing selective entry at primary school level. As a result of his inadequacy in


explaining the Government position, his confusion and his inability to answer the question, "How will schools select?" we tabled new clause 9.
Let us get this straight: the Under-Secretary of State agrees with what new clause 9 says, but she refuses to vote for it. What sort of Government are prepared to leave legislation on the statute book that confuses parents and misleads teachers because of the remarks of the Minister of State, and ignore the opportunity to put the record straight? As a result of the confusion among Ministers, there is only one may of making it clear that baseline assessment must not and will not be used for selective admission of children to primary school, and that is to put new clause 9 and amendments Nos. 50 and 51 on the face of the Bill.

Mrs. Gillan: rose—

Ms Morris: I am sorry; it is too late. The Under-Secretary of State had her chance and failed to make Government policy clear.
The new clause is important, not only because of what it does to clarify primary selection, but because it will save baseline assessment from the confusion that the Government have thrown it into. It is a good scheme—a good measure. It has the support of the Opposition parties, and it should never have been mixed up with techniques of primary selection. The Under-Secretary loses the chance to make the record clear.
I want to add some comments to those already made about the contribution by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). He spoke with passion and he is genuinely concerned about too many children in this country who do not achieve and who lose opportunity. However, the world has moved on from the days when we had the 11-plus. In those days, we had an economy that could run if we only developed the skills of the few. We now have an economy that needs all adults to raise their standards and reach their potential.
The problem with selection is that it labels children failures. Has anyone ever heard a child say, "I passed for secondary modern"? What happens with the 11-plus is that one passes for grammar school or fails the 11-plus. The 11-plus institutionalises those low expectations. I agree with the hon. Member for Southend, East that mere is a real challenge to raise standards in some schools throughout the country; but returning to the days when we labelled children failures is not the way to meet that challenge. The way is to face up to the challenge of ensuring that every school raises every pupil's ability, so that we no longer have to rely on an escape route for the few.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 257, Noes 303.

Division No. 53]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Ashdown, Paddy


Ainger, Nick
Ashton, Joseph


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Austin-Walker, John


Allen, Graham
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Alton, David
Barnes, Harry





Barron, Kevin
Garrett, John


Battle, John
George, Bruce


Bayley, Hugh
Gerrard, Neil


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Gilbert, Dr John


Beith, A J
Godman, Dr Norman A


Benn, Tony
Godsiff, Roger


Bennett, Andrew F
Golding, Mrs Llin


Benton, Joe
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Bermingham, Gerald
Graham, Thomas


Berry, Roger
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Betts, Clive
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Blunkett, David
Grocott, Bruce


Boateng, Paul
Gunnell, John


Bradley, Keith
Hain, Peter


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hall, Mike


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hanson, David


Bruce, Malcolm (Gorton)
Hardy, Peter


Burden, Richard
Harman, Ms Harriet


Byers, Stephen
Harvey, Nick


Cabom, Richard
Heppell, John


Callaghan, Jim
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hoey, Kate


Campbell-Savours, D N
Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)


Canavan, Dennis
Home Robertson, John


Cann, Jamie
Hood, Jimmy


Chidgey, David
Hoon, Geoffrey


Chisholm, Malcolm
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Church, Ms Judith
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clapham, Michael
Howells, Dr Kim


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hoyle, Doug


Clelland, David
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Robert (Ab'dn N)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Connarty, Michael
Hutton, John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Illsley, Eric


Corbyn, Jeremy
Ingram, Adam


Corston, Ms Jean
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)


Cousins, Jim
Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)


Cox, Tom
Jamieson, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Janner, Greville


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)
Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)


Cunningham, Dr John
Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davies, Chris (Littleborough)
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Kaufman, Gerald


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Keen, Alan


Denham, John
Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)


Dewar, Donald
Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)


Dixon, Don
Khabra, Piara S


Dobson, Frank
Kilfoyle, Peter


Donohoe, Brian H
Lewis, Terry


Dowd, Jim
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Litherland, Robert


Eastham, Ken
Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)


Ennis, Jeff
Loyden, Eddie


Etherington, Bill
McAllion, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McAvoy, Thomas


Fatchett, Derek
McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)


Faulds, Andrew
Macdonald, Calum


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McFall, John


Fisher, Mark
McKelvey, William


Flynn, Paul
Mackinlay, Andrew


Foster, Derek
McLeish, Henry


Foster, Don (Bath)
McMaster, Gordon


Foulkes, George
McNamara, Kevin


Fraser, John
MacShane, Denis


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
McWilliam, John


Galbraith, Sam
Madden, Max


Galloway, George
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Gapes, Mike
Mahon, Mrs Alice






Marek, Dr John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Rowlands, Ted


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Sheerman, Barry


Martlew, Eric
Sheldon, Robert


Maxton, John
Simpson, Alan


Meacher, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Michael, Alun
Smith, Chris (Islington S)


Milburn, Alan
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Miller, Andrew
Snape, Peter


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Soley, Clive


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Spearing, Nigel


Morgan, Rhodri
Spellar, John


Morley, Elliot
Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Steinberg, Gerry


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Stevenson, George


Mudie, George
Stott, Roger


Mullin, Chris
Strang, Dr Gavin



Sutcliffe, Gerry


Murphy, Paul
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Oakes, Gordon
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Thumham, Peter


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Timms, Stephen


Olner, Bill
Tipping, Paddy


O'Neill, Martin
Touhig, Don


Orme, Stanley
Trickett, Jon


Pearson, Ian
Turner, Dennis


Pendry, Tom
Tyler, Paul


Pickthall, Colin
Vaz, Keith


Pike, Peter L
Walker, Sir Harold


Pope, Greg
Walley, Ms Joan


Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)
Wareing, Robert N


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Watson, Mike


Prescott, John
Wicks, Malcolm


Primarolo, Ms Dawn
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Purchase, Ken
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wilson, Brian


Radice, Giles
Winnick, David


Raynsford, Nick
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Reid, Dr John
Worthington, Tony


Rendel, David
Wray, Jimmy


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wright, Dr Tony


Roche, Mrs Barbara



Rogers, Allan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rooker, Jeff
Ms Angela Eagle and


Rooney, Terry
Mr. John Cummings.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Boswell, Tim


Aitken, Jonathan
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Alexander, Richard
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Bowis, John


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Boyson, Sir Rhodes


Amess, David
Brandreth, Gyles


Arbuthnot, James
Brazier, Julian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bright, Sir Graham


Ashby, David
Brooke, Peter


Atkins, Robert
Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)
Budgen, Nicholas


Baldry, Tony
Burns, Simon


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Burt, Alistair


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Butcher, John


Bates, Michael
Butler, Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Carlisle, John (Luton N)


Bellingham, Henry
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)


Bendall, Vivian
Carrington, Matthew


Beresford, Sir Paul
Carttiss, Michael


Biffen, John
Cash, William


Body, Sir Richard
Channon, Paul


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Booth, Hartley
Churchill, Mr





Clappison, James
Hayes, Jerry


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)
Heald, Oliver


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Heath, Sir Edward


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coe, Sebastian
Hendry, Charles


Colvin, Michael
Heseltine, Michael


Congdon, David
Hicks, Sir Robert


Conway, Derek
Higgins, Sir Terence


Cope, Sir John
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)


Couchman, James
Horam, John


Cran, James
Hordern, Sir Peter


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howell, David (Guildf'd)


Curry, David
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Day, Stephen
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hunter, Andrew


Devlin, Tim
Hurd, Douglas


Dicks, Terry
Jack, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)


Dover, Den
Jessel, Toby


Duncan, Alan
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Jones, Robert B (W Herts)


Dunn, Bob
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dykes, Hugh
Key, Robert


Eggar, Tim
King, Tom


Elletson, Harold
Kirkhope, Timothy


Emery, Sir Peter
Knapman, Roger


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knight Greg (Derby N)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Knox, Sir David


Evennett, David
Kynoch, George


Faber, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Fabricant, Michael
Lang, Ian


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Legg, Barry


Fishburn, Dudley
Leigh, Edward


Forman, Nigel
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)


Forth, Eric
Lidington, David


Fowler, Sir Norman
Lilley, Peter


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Lord, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Luff, Peter


French, Douglas
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fry, Sir Peter
MacGregor, John


Gale, Roger
MacKay, Andrew


Gallie, Phil
Maclean, David


Gardiner, Sir George
McLoughlin, Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Garnier, Edward
Madel, Sir David


Gill, Christopher
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Major, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Malone, Gerald


Goodson—Wickes, Dr Charles
Mans, Keith


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marland, Paul


Gorst, Sir John
Marlow, Tony


Grant Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mates, Michael


Gummer, John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hague, William
Mellor, David


Hamilton, Sir Archibald
Merchant, Piers


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hanley, Jeremy
Moate, Sir Roger


Hannam, Sir John
Monro, Sir Hector


Hargreaves, Andrew
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Harris, David
Moss, Malcolm


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Needham, Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Nelson, Anthony


Hawksley, Warren
Neubert, Sir Michael






Newton, Tony
Stanley, Sir John


Nicholls, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stephen, Michael


Norris, Steve
Stern, Michael


Onslow, Sir Cranley
Stewart, Allan


Oppenheim, Phillip
Streeter, Gary


Ottaway, Richard
Sumberg, David


Page, Richard
Sweeney, Walter


Paice, James
Sykes, John


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Patten, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Pattie, Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Pawsey, James
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Temple—Morris, Peter


Pickles, Eric
Thomason, Roy


Porter, David
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)


Portillo, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Powell, William (Corby)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Rathbone, Tim
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Redwood, John
Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)


Renton, Tim
Tracey, Richard


Richards, Rod
Tredinnick, David


Riddick, Graham
Trend, Michael


Robathan, Andrew
Trotter, Neville


Roberts, Sir Wyn
Twinn, Dr Ian



Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'dn S)
Viggers, Peter


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Waldegrave, William


Roe, Mrs Marion
Walden, George


Rowe, Andrew
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Rumbold, Dame Angela
Waller, Gary


Ryder, Richard
Ward, John


Sackville, Tom
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sainsbury, Sir Timothy
Waterson, Nigel


Scott, Sir Nicholas
Watts, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wells, Bowen


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wheeler, Sir John


Shephard, Mrs Gillian
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)
Whittingdale, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Sims, Sir Roger
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Skeet Sir Trevor
Wilkinson, John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Willetts, David


Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)
Wilshire, David


Soames, Nicholas
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Speed, Sir Keith
Winterton, Nicholas (Macdesf'ld)


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wolfson, Mark


Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)
Yeo, Tim


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Young, Sir George


Spink, Dr Robert



Spring, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Sproat, Iain
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Mr. Anthony Coombs.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

FLOOD PREVENTION AND LAND DRAINAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 94E (Scottish Grand Committee (Bills in relation to their principle)),
That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Carrington.]

Question agreed to.

FLOOD PREVENTION AND LAND DRAINAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Flood Prevention and Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Carrington.]

Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Road Traffic Regulation (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 4th December, be approved.

BROADCASTING

That the draft Broadcasting (Sign Language) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 10th December, be approved.—[Mr. Carrington.]

Question agreed to.

PETITION

Sexual Offenders (Rehabilitation Unit)

Mrs. Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for granting me permission to present a petition on behalf of 3,000 of my constituents on the day when the House has been considering the Sex Offenders Bill, a measure which it is hoped will assist in the supervision of sex offenders, and thereby make life safer for our children.
The petition of the residents of Old Swan, Liverpool, declares that they have strong objections to the use of 5 Derby lane as a development unit for the rehabilitation of those convicted of sexual offences, on the ground of its proximity to six local schools and nurseries, a youth club and a public park.
The petitioners therefore call on the House of Commons to urge the Secretary of State for the Home Department to ensure that 5 Derby lane is not granted permission, either now or in the future, to be used for the above purpose.

To lie upon the Table.

PRC Homes (Southampton)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]

Mr. John Denham: Thank you, Madam Speaker for giving me the opportunity to raise an issue that affects at least nine of my constituents in Sholing, Southampton. I realise that that is a relatively small number of people to make the subject of an Adjournment debate, but their situation is a serious one, and one that I hope will be assisted by tonight's debate. Their homes are structurally unsound. They cannot be sold, and they could not be mortgaged. Yet there is no agreement about how they might be repaired, and there is no immediate prospect of any improvement in the situation.
I am speaking on behalf of innocent victims of a series of events outside their control. I hope that, by raising their plight tonight, through publicity and through seeking the support of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), who sits on the Opposition Front Bench, and that of the Minister, it will be possible to find a solution to their problems.
All my constituents who find themselves in the position that I have described have bought their homes from Southampton city council, some under the right-to-buy legislation and others under the voluntary sales policy that existed before the right to buy. All the homes are of pre-cast reinforced concrete. They are all of a particular model—"Wates".
Following widespread concern about the deterioration of PRC-built homes, the Government introduced the Housing Defects Act 1984. Under the Act, grants became available for the repair of properties and, in hardship cases, for re-purchase by local authorities.
Although there was little evidence of serious deterioration of homes formerly owned by the city council, the widespread bad publicity and the passing of the Act blighted all such homes, and most people took advantage of the repair grants. That is what my constituents did. It still grates on them that, shortly after their homes were supposedly repaired, there was a switch, and from then on most people used the grant money to have their homes rebuilt. My constituents were among the last in Southampton to have homes of this type repaired.
The homes were supposed to be repaired in 1990 and 1991. As the Minister knows, a licence and warranty arrangement was established to ensure that repairs to the defective houses were undertaken effectively, and that all repaired dwellings were mortgageable. That arrangement was set up and controlled by a subsidiary of the National House-Building Council called PRC Homes Ltd. The PRC Homes scheme involved the preparation and design of a series of repair schemes. The schemes were developed and had to be approved by a qualified appraiser, after which a licence was issued by PRC Homes to the designer of the repair scheme.
The repair scheme was usually also submitted to each relevant local authority for building regulations and planning approvals, and for grant assistance. That process made it possible to identify whether a licence needed to be amended to suit the particular condition in each local area. After that process, the work was usually tendered and a repairer—a builder—was appointed to do the work.
The reason for tonight's debate is quite simple. For my constituents in Sholing, that process broke down, and broke down badly. What is not in doubt is that the works that were carried out were not carried out to the licence. But there is some doubt whether the licence that was approved was suitable for the type of homes involved and for the working conditions that applied to my constituents' homes. What is at issue, and what I want to ask tonight, is what exactly is wrong, what now needs to be done to put it right, and who is responsible for carrying out and paying for the work.
I shall not go into great technical detail: I do not have the technical expertise to do so, and I shall limit the time that I take reading from other people's technical documents. The fundamental principle of the repair schemes seems to have been that the concrete panels, which were or could be defective, should no longer be load-bearing. Either they had to be removed and replaced, or additional structures had to be put in place that took the load instead.
In the case of the Southampton properties, those principles were breached in a major way. Concrete panels were left load-bearing, and replacement walls were built in such a way as to be incapable of providing a secure structure and a secure home.
To explain why I have asked for an Adjournment debate, I shall go over some of the history. PRC Homes had overall responsibility for the administration of the Housing Defects Act 1984. Michael Dyson Associates obtained the repair licence for the Wates homes in Sholing in Southampton. That company was the agent for thousands of different types of PRC homes up and down the country. The builders were S. J. Wickens. Incidentally, my constituents were refused a choice of builder by Michael Dyson Associates, even though work on other Wates properties in Southampton had been done by a different builder. The local authority was Southampton city council.
I shall not go into all the details, but I must point out that some variations to the normal licence were required to cope with the problem of Wates houses that had a party wall with a city council tenant rather than another home owner. That meant that all the work had to be carried out from one side of the party wall. The treatment of the party wall turned out later to be a significant problem.
The repairs in Sholing were in Coates road, Sullivan road and Parry road, and were carried out between 1990 and 1991. It is accepted that problems were identified during that time. It should be stressed that the problems were identified only because of the alertness and vigilance of some of the home owners. None were identified during the inspections of the properties. Indeed, Michael Dyson Associates signed off the properties as having had the works carried out to the licence conditions. It also issued inspection certificates, which were supposed to carry a 10-year guarantee that would satisfy a mortgage lender. I have one of those certificates, and it is quite worthless.
It is odd that an agent that had a financial interest in the progress of the work was able to approve work and release moneys to itself. A clear conflict of interest lies behind some of the problems. It was only because some of the home owners had some common sense and technical expertise and challenged what had been done to their homes, that the problems came to light.
The city council took the view, consistent with Department of the Environment circulars, that the presentation of a certificate from Michael Dyson Associates was sufficient for it to release grant money. I should say for the record that I chaired the Southampton housing committee in 1990 and 1991. I have checked the records carefully, and I can say that none of the issues was presented to members during that period.
Only after some home owners objected did city council officers refuse to release some funds on some properties. I stress the history, because some people have tried to make my constituents seem unreasonable in what they have done since. The truth is that, throughout this sorry story, my constituents have received a series of reassurances which, on their challenge, turned out to be useless.
I cannot give a blow-by-blow account of what happened in 1990 and 1991, but those who had complained were asked to allow Wickens the builder back into their homes a number of times. Some did, as many as three times, but it became clear that any work being done was cosmetic, and was not dealing with the major structural problems. Given the home owners' disillusionment, it is not surprising that court action seemed to them the only way forward.
In 1991, PRC Homes received correspondence from my predecessor, Christopher Chope; then from one of the home owners; then from solicitors representing seven owners. In my view, it is deeply disappointing that no systematic inspection of the properties in Sholing was carried out by PRC Homes at that time. PRC Homes will say that that was because of the threat of legal action. Later—under pressure from me—it relented, although legal action was still a possibility. By that time, it must surely have been clear that there was potentially a real problem with a number of homes in Southampton, and that it would have been better to intervene.
I understand that, during 1991 and 1992, various discussions took place involving Michael Dyson Associates, the city council and some home owners regarding potential repairs. The tone of those discussions suggested that the owners were being unreasonable in not letting anyone back in to do the work, but they were understandably reluctant to trust the company that had so clearly approved the shoddy previous repairs, or the builder who had let them down so badly.
After my election, I was approached by two of the owners, Mrs. Conroy and Mr. Hampton. I felt that the priority was to find out what needed to be done, and that argument about who should do it should take place later. In December 1992, I sought help from PRC Homes. On this occasion, it did respond, and agreed to inspect properties—but only the properties of Mrs. Conroy and Mr. Hampton: it would not look at others that might be defective.
That was, I believe, a fundamental error. All the onus was being placed—as it had been from the beginning—on home owners to know that there was something wrong with their properties. At that time, I was gradually becoming aware of more and more owners with potential problems.
An inspection took place, and on, 20 May 1993, PRC Homes wrote to Southampton city council saying that the timber frame party wall was fundamentally defective. By

that time, however, Wickens was in receivership. Over the summer of 1993, PRC Homes found out from the city council how much money had not yet been paid to the builder—a sum potentially to contribute to the cost of repairs. It was now being suggested that £10,000 would be needed to repair each home. That was far less than the home owners believed was necessary; rightly or wrongly, it reinforced the view that they would again be fobbed off.
For some home owners, it was now three and a half years since their homes should have been repaired. There was a fundamental breakdown of trust in relation to Michael Dyson Associates, the council and PRC Homes. There is no doubt that the situation had become complex, with some home owners seeking a negotiated solution, some taking or least threatening legal action and some supported in such action by legal aid. Access to the homes was not easy.
In February 1994, I again approached PRC Homes and suggested that we meet to discuss the position. I met Basil Bean, chairman of PRC Homes, here at the House of Commons. It was agreed that a new approach would be tried: PRC Homes would put together a repair scheme and offer it to the home owners, and the city council would provide "decant" accommodation. In June 1994, at Southampton civic centre, I chaired a meeting at which that approach was suggested.
By that time, I knew of nine affected home owners, far more than had contacted PRC Homes. PRC Homes had made no attempt to contact other people with similar property who had had work done by Michael Dyson Associates and Wickens.
By that time, some home owners had decided that the only way forward was either the complete demolition of their homes, and a rebuild, or for someone to re-purchase their homes. At the meeting in Southampton, some owners reserved their rights to press for those options. As those home owners knew, my hope was more modest. It was to achieve, through negotiation, repairs that would at least put people back where they thought they were going to be in the first place: with sound, mortgageable properties. None the less, the city council explored with the Department of the Environment whether the council could receive any extra funding to re-purchase the properties, but that was not possible under the Housing Defects Act.
Some owners were willing to consider repairs. In January 1995, PRC Homes wrote to all owners setting out its offer of repairs and the city council's offer of accommodation. I believed then that the problem was close to resolution, but, two years later, no work has started, although one home may be done in February. That is why I took up the issue again in the autumn.
One of the reasons for asking for this debate is that I could not obtain answers to my letters to PRC Homes. I have now had a reply, but I am sorry to say that we are not much nearer a solution. I accept that there has been a good deal of toing and froing with the owners, which has taken time. Not surprisingly, they want to be satisfied that the work to be done would do the job. I am sorry to say that the story is repeating itself.
Most fundamentally, each owner is being dealt with separately, although their problems are common. Those owners that have challenged the PRC Homes proposals have produced convincing evidence that the proposed repair scheme is inadequate. One of the owners,


Mr. Magee, has obtained, under legal aid, a structural survey of his property. That sets out clearly not only what was wrong with the original repairs, but what is wrong with the PRC Homes scheme.
Again, I stress that I am not technically qualified to assess the evidence, and all the properties are different, but I find the report persuasive. It confirms that a steel beam has been fixed to a concrete panel, a fundamental breach of the licence, and concludes:
If the steel was severed from the concrete panel, as is required by the licence, we believe that the party wall framework would not be capable of carrying the imposed first floor and roof loading. The structural stability of the property would be seriously affected, resulting in potential partial collapse.
That confirms the concern about the party wall, but the report, alongside a lengthy list of poor workmanship and licence breaches, also finds a major breach in the treatment of the non-party walls involving the removal of linings.
Again, I quote from the survey:
this item has resulted in general misunderstanding by the repairer and designer alike, leading to major constructional defects and problems on site and large scale deviations from the licence. In effect, the removal of internal linings completely revokes the licence which was prepared on the basis of linings remaining.
It goes on to say that a trial hole
shows the fixing of the roof to the new blockwork to be structurally inadequate, the junction between external cavity wall and internal gable wall to be inadequately tied, and the walls to be poorly constructed. Large scale rebuilding works are urgently required to remedy these defects.
I could go on, but those quotes illustrate the scale of the problem on one property. They have not been reflected in the PRC Homes response to date. The PRC Homes proposals are in respect only of the party wall framework. As they stand, they will not rectify the other major constructional defects.
As I have mentioned, there was originally talk of £10,000 per property being needed. Some owners have been told that the cost in their case may reach £20,000. The structural engineer's survey on this one property estimated the repair cost at £37,000. Every estimate puts the repair cost closer to the cost of a rebuild.
I cannot stress too much that it is not right that the scale of the problem should be revealed only by the individual initiative of my constituents. In this case, it is the taxpayer, through legal aid, who has funded the survey. Another constituent has already spent nearly £8,000 on surveys and legal fees in obtaining her own independent advice—all that because there has not yet been a commitment to a comprehensive and inclusive solution to the problem.
Of course I welcome PRC Homes's general acceptance of the need to respond to the crisis faced by my constituents, but PRC Homes must move more speedily and comprehensively to a solution than it has done so far. It is now seven years since the first work was done, four and a half years since I first became involved, and two years since PRC Homes offered to undertake repairs. That time scale is not good enough. There is no sense yet of an organisation that is committed to finding, urgently, a comprehensive solution.
I ask the Minister to support me, because PRC Homes was and is responsible for implementing the Housing Defects Act, which is Government legislation. Others,

such as Michael Dyson and the builders, Wickens, may bear responsibility for the original failure, but the ball is now in the court of PRC Homes. I ask the Minister to support my contention that PRC Homes must find a complete solution for all the properties. As part of that, it must satisfy itself that no other properties repaired by the same or similar people have hidden problems on this scale.
Given the distrust that now exists, a system of independent inspection or arbitration covering all the properties must be agreed and put speedily into place. Finally, PRC Homes should agree in advance to carry out the necessary remedial work, or to agree an alternative with the home owners. Any need to recoup funds from any other party to this sorry tale should be the responsibility of PRC Homes.
My concern is that my constituents, whose homes have been worthless for more than a decade, will be forced into a situation in which some will take an inadequate offer out of desperation, others will struggle to finance their own legal action, and yet others will have to be funded by the taxpayer through lengthy legal battles. That would be quite unfair, and I ask the Minister to use all his powers to press for a solution along the lines that I have outlined.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) and to the Minister for allowing me to speak briefly in the debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for raising this important subject, which affects a number of his constituents. He has rightly highlighted the disturbing implications for them of the manifest failure of schemes, and the way in which they were put into effect, that were supposed to resolve the problems in their homes.
Some wider issues of public concern ought to be addressed, and I hope that the Minister will attend to them, if not now at least in the near future. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen made a reasonable case for the need for some kind of independent verification and inspection of the quality and validity of the work. Those involved in the process, whether PRC Homes or Michael Dyson Associates, all had a vested interest in the way in which the work was carried out. There seems to have been no proper mechanism to ensure independent scrutiny and inspection.
Secondly, there is the issue of public money. The works carried out to the defective homes under the relevant legislation involved the use of public money, and my hon. Friend has said that more public money is being spent on legal aid to try to enforce remedial works because of the failure of initial work. It is unsatisfactory for public money to be brought into use for a second time by a different route to enforce repair work that would not have been necessary if the original remedial action had been carried out properly.
Thirdly, there is the wider issue of the remedies that are available to home owners. The Minister will be aware of growing concern that the systems, supposedly designed to reassure those who buy new homes, that are operated through the National House-Building Council and other bodies have sometimes not proved entirely satisfactory. PRC Homes, a subsidiary of the NHBC, seems to have failed to provide a speedy and adequate response to the


rightful concerns and grievances of home owners. I hope that the Minister will address those matters and ensure justice at long last for my hon. Friend's constituents, and that he will also address the wider issues.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I appreciate the interest of the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) in this matter. Perhaps he and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) will allow me to put these issues in the context of the housing defects scheme of assistance as a whole.
In the early 1980s, following discovery of cracking in the columns of an Airey house, the Building Research Establishment conducted a comprehensive investigation into all types of precast reinforced concrete houses built before 1960. The BRE discovered that, unfortunately, in a long-term chemical process known as carbonation, carbon dioxide interacted with the concrete to change its composition, so that the protection that it afforded to the steel reinforcement would eventually be lost, and in due course houses would become structurally unsound.
It is a slow process, and the BRE found that, in most cases, structural failure would not occur for some time. However, all dwellings of that type would eventually be affected, which meant that many former tenants—over 25,000 in England alone—had bought their homes at a valuation that did not accurately reflect the true likely dwelling life.
The homes had been sold in good faith by public sector landlords, in circumstances in which neither the vendor nor the purchaser could have been aware of the inherent defects. Therefore, with all-party support, we introduced the scheme of assistance embodied in the Housing Defects Act 1984. The scheme entailed that, over a 10-year period, owners would receive 90 per cent. grants, or 100 per cent. grants in cases of financial hardship, to reinstate their houses to the structural condition that their original valuation had assumed—the "defect-free" value.
Reinstating houses to that condition meant either removing and replacing the original PRC components or making them structurally redundant. In cases in which it was physically impossible to do so or it offered better value for money, or in hardship cases, the alternative form of assistance would be re-purchase. The primary form of assistance, however, would be through reinstatement.
It was a massive undertaking. In England alone, 22 different PRC house types were initially designated under the legislation as inherently defective, some of them with as many as 18 separate variants. Repair systems had to be designed for all of them that met the stringent standards on which lending institutions rightly insisted to accept houses as assets for mortgage purposes. Therefore, the National House-Building Council set up a subsidiary—PRC Homes Ltd.—to license repair systems that would meet the criteria, and repairers to carry out the work; to approve a list of inspectors to inspect the work; and to issue a 10-year warranty at completion.
PRC Homes Ltd. was fortunate in being able to call upon advice from technical experts from the local authorities, who were to administer the scheme, and from the lending institutions, BRE, and my Department. The assessment committee met regularly over a period of eight years to evaluate, line by line and drawing by drawing, the specifications for a total of 53 separate repair systems. As a result of their work, less than 1 per cent. of owners eligible under the scheme who have applied for assistance are still waiting for works to be completed, and we expect the vast majority of local authorities, including Southampton, to have completed their programmes by the end of this financial year.
Lending institutions have been supportive throughout. A survey of the largest building societies, conducted in 1986, suggested that almost all would consider on normal terms an application for mortgage on a repaired property, and that generally remains the case today. However, even the most watertight licence and inspection system is vulnerable to human frailty, and there is always a possibility of problems, which is why the PRC Homes Ltd. warranty makes provision for ensuring that defects or damage caused by failure to comply with workmanship, materials or design requirements of the repair system that are discovered in the first two years after completion are rectified by the repairer or—if the repairer becomes bankrupt—by PRC Homes Ltd. itself.
In the specific cases in Southampton which the hon. Member for Itchen has brought to our attention, the repairer did vary a detail from that shown in the licensed system. The variation was picked up by the inspector, however, who instructed the repairer to return to site to carry out remedial work—which he agreed to do, pending release of retention moneys. As I understand it, the variation in no way compromised the structural stability of the dwellings, but merely meant that the new works to render the existing party wall structurally redundant were not completely independent of the unrepaired property next door. A continuous beam linking the two properties had been left, rather than severed at the party wall, as required by the repair system. Until the matter was remedied, obviously the repair could not be accepted by a lending institution as conforming completely with the licensed repair system.
Unfortunately, it appears that at least some of the owners were unwilling to give the repairer access to their houses to carry out the work, and that, for the same reason, later attempts by PRC Homes Ltd. to carry out an independent inspection were also unsuccessful. A warning of legal action by six of the owners then meant that PRC Homes Ltd. did not feel that it could be further directly involved at that stage.
That state of affairs persisted until December 1992, when the hon. Member for Itchen wrote to PRC Homes Ltd. asking for their assistance as an "honest broker". A site meeting was arranged at three of the properties, in April 1993, to agree a schedule of works, but, in June 1993, PRC Homes Ltd. were advised that the repairer had ceased trading.
That meant that PRC Homes Ltd. was now directly involved under the terms of the insurance certificate. However, in October 1993, one of the owners telephoned PRC Homes Ltd. to advise the company that the owners did not want repairs done, and that she and three of the other owners were considering legal action against the


inspector. Nevertheless, PRC Homes Ltd. managed to obtain access to the properties to carry out inspections over the next three months.
In April 1994, one of the owners contacted an official in my Department, who advised her that the scheme of assistance was administered by local authorities, and that it therefore did not appear to be a matter in which the Department could become directly involved.
Southampton city council then wrote to my Department in October of that year in response to a request from the owners, inquiring whether it would be possible for the council to re-purchase the properties. It was pointed out that there was no provision in the legislation for assistance by re-purchase after an owner had already received assistance by way of reinstatement grant. That remains the case today, and, in any case, as I have already noted, re-purchase as a form of assistance is available under the legislation only in very specific circumstances, which Southampton city council had evidently decided in 1989 did not apply here.
Re-purchase is not a feasible solution to the owners' problems, and while I obviously sympathise with their desire not to undergo further disruption to their homes

while remedial work is carried out, nevertheless the fact remains that the only viable way forward is that provided by the terms of the warranty.
Both Southampton city council and PRC Homes Ltd. are, I understand, in agreement on the works to be done. I also understand that the council has offered the use of an empty house as alternative accommodation while the work is carried out, and that PRC Homes Ltd. is prepared to meet storage and removal costs, even though the original works were carried out with the owners in residence.
I do not see what more the two parties can do to advance matters, and indeed I understand that one of the owners has already accepted that, and has even agreed that work can proceed while he remains in occupation. If the other owners signal their agreement, they too can join the contract, and put an end to seven years of frustration and uncertainty. I very much hope that that proves to be the case, and that, having heard what I have had to say, the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that it is the only practical outcome.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.